Rohit Sabharwal vs State Information Commission Punjab And Others

Kuldeep Tiwari, J

The petitioner, fetching griievance from the order dateed 02.12.2020 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Punjab State Informatioon Commissionn (respondent No.1), wherethrough, his appeal was rejected, on the ground,, that the information sought by the petitioner, is hit by thhe provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 20005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2005’), has filed the instant wrrit petition, casst under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitiioner, while drawing attention of this Court towards the contents of the appllication, submits that none of thhe information sought by the petitioner would invade the privacy of any officeer. He submits that the only information, which has been sought from the SPIIO concerned, is to the effect, to disclose the naames and number of officers, who information was sought about the propertty of any officer. Therefore, thhe learned Infoormation Commission, Punjab, without appreciating these factts, has mechannically invoked the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005, and dismissed the appeal, preferred by the petitioner. Finally, he places reliance upoon the proviso attached under Seection 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005, to submit thhat the information, which cannoot be denied to Parliament or State Legislation, shall not be denied to any persoon.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment (Annexure P-7), passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Girish Ramchandra Deshpandde versus Central Information Commissioner and others’ to submit that thhis issue has already been adjudicated, wherethrough, it has categorically explained thhe expression “personal informmation” and that the information, which has been sought, is primarily between the employer and the employeee, and normally these aspects are governed by the service rules, which fallls under the expression “personal information” and disclosure of thhis information has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, annd this is an endeavour to invade the privacy off that individual.

This Court has considered thhe submissions made by learneed counsel for the parties concerned, and has gone through the available record.

Before embarking upon the suubmissions of learned counsel for the parties, and to evaluate the legality of thhe impugned order, it is important to have a glimpse upon the application dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), filed under the Act of 2005, wherethroughh, the following information was sought:-

“(i) Provide Certified Copy of the Information (for thhe above said Years) showing the Total Number of the Publlic Servants that failed to fiile their Annual Property Returns with their concerned Public Authority and failed to shoow compliance with the aforresaid Statutory Rule.

(ii) Provide Certified Copy of the Information (for thhe above said Years) showing the Names and Designations of the officers that failed to file their Annual Property Returns with their conceerned Public Authority and faileed to show compliance with the aforesaid Statutory Rule.

(iii) Provide Certified Copy of the Information showinng the Action taken by the Competent Authority against those Public Servants who faiiled to file their Annual Property Returns with their conceerned Public Authority and faileed to show compliance wiith the Statutory Rule as askeed under Point No. 2 of this Application.

(iv) If till date, no acttion has been taken against thhe Officers who have faileed to file their Annual Property Returns with their concerned Public Authority, theen Provide the Reasons foor the same as available on thhe records of your Public Authority.

(v) Provide Certified Copy of the Information showing thhe Action and the Punishmeent that can be initiated as per thhe Law of the Land againsst an Officer who fails to file his Annual Property Returnn in compliance of the aforesaid Statutory Rule.”

Perusal of above reflects that the petitioner has not sought thhe information qua annual property returns of any officer, rather the informatioon has been sought, to the extent, that to discloose the name of the public servannt, who has failed to submit his annual property return. Whether succh information is hit by the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005, ought to havve been evaluated. However, the same has not been done. Learneed Information Commissioner, solely by placcing reliance upon the judgment Girish Rammchandra Deshpande (supra), proceeded to dismiss the appeaal. The impugnned order does not carry any reasson for invocation of provisions of Section 8 (11) (j) of the Act of 2005, thereforre, this Court, can safely concludde that the saaid order is without any cogent reasons, and same requires interference of this Court.

In view of the above, the immpugned order dated 02.12.20220 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Punjab State Information Commission (respondent No.1), is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to thhe latter, for deciding the lis afresh, within a period of four months, from thhe date of receiipt of certified copy of this orderr.

Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of.