NCLAT: Cannot Withhold Income Tax Refund Received by Bank During CIRP In CD's Account  ||  All. HC: With S. 111 of BNS Covering 'Organised Crime' It Appears Gangsters Act has become Redundant  ||  P&H HC: Cannot Allow Changes in Admission Form after Submission  ||  Bom. HC: Findings in Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Relied Upon While Adjudicating Civil Proceedings  ||  P&H HC Directs Jail Authorities to Decide Parole Applications within Four Months  ||  Allahabad HC: Merely Supporting Pakistan Will Not Prima Facie Attract Section 152 of BNS  ||  HP HC Upholds Wife’s Claim of Adverse Possession after Husband’s Death  ||  Patna HC: Maintenance may be Allowed in Disputed Marriages if Relationship Was Socially Accepted  ||  Karnataka HC: State to Respond in 3 Weeks regarding Mandatory Teaching of Kannada  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Unhappy in Marriage is No Proof of Abetment of Suicide    

Union of India Ministry of Railways v. Kishan Lal Meena - (High Court of Delhi) (08 Nov 2016)

Reasoning or rationing must be accorded by CIC while ordering disclosure of any information

MANU/DE/3003/2016

Right to Information

Petitioner seeks quashing of order passed by Central Information Commission allowing appeal of Respondent and directing Petitioner to provide information sought for by Respondent. Petitioner by his application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 had sought for information being copies of files pertaining to investigation against Senior DME, Ajmer. Provision of said information was declined on ground that same was exempted under Section 8(1)(g) and (j) of Act being personal information and there being no public interest involved. On an appeal by Respondent, first Appellate Authority upheld decision of CPIO and held that, information was exempted from being disclosed. Central Information Commission directed Petitioner to provide information to Respondent.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that, CIC has merely recorded contentions of Appellant as well as Respondent and has passed a one line order. Central Information Commission has not returned any finding as the infirmity in orders of CPIO and first appellate authority. CIC has not recorded any finding as to how information, sought for by the respondent, is not exempted under Section 8 of Act. There is no reasoning given by Central Information Commission in order as to the errors committed by CPIO as well as First Appellate Authority.

Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.: (2013) 1 SCC 212, has held that, performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between employee and employer and would normally be governed by service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’. Disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. Supreme Court has also held that, disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Supreme Court has, however, noted that, in a given case, if CPIO or State Public Information Officer or Appellate Authority is satisfied that, larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed.

In present case, there is no finding returned by Central Information Commission that there is a larger public interest which justices disclosure of information, in fact, there is no reasoning or rationing accorded in impugned order except to direct Petitioner to furnish information. Impugned order, was not sustainable, same was, accordingly quashed.

Relevant : Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.: (2013) 1 SCC 212, Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005

Tags : INFORMATION   DISCLOSURE   DIRECTIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved