Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Municipal Corporation Delhi - Petitioner
Versus
Rajbir - Respondent
W.P. (C) 13219 of 2009 & CM 14393 of 2009
Decided On : 24-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Biji Rajesh, Ms. Eshita Baruah for Gaurang Kanth
For the Respondent: Mr. V.K. Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is that personal information, including details of personal assets of public servants, is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless justified by larger public interest and following the prescribed procedure under the Act.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Disclosure of Personal Information - Section 8(1)(j)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, MCD, challenged an order by the CIC directing disclosure of personal information of one of its employees sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the information sought by the respondent qualified as personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It emphasized that disclosure of personal assets of public servants should be justified by larger public interest and should follow the prescribed procedure under the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether MCD was obliged to disclose details of the immovable properties held by its employees or whether such information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, emphasizing that personal information with no relationship to any public activity or interest is exempt from disclosure unless justified by larger public interest. It also highlighted the need to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 11 of the Act for disclosure of such information.
Final Decision: The impugned order directing the disclosure of personal information relating to the employee of MCD was set aside.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner (hereafter ‘MCD’) has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 06.10.2009 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘the CIC’). By the impugned order, the CIC has allowed respondent’s appeal and has directed MCD to disclose the information sought by him. The MCD claims that the information which it is called upon to disclose is exempt from such disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’).
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy in this petition are as under:-
2.1 On 18.02.2009, respondent filed an application under the Act seeking information relating to one Dr Ashok Rawat (one of the employees of MCD). The contents of the said application indicating the information sought by respondent are set out below:-
“Kindly provide the Assets and Liabilities of D.H.O. Shahdara North Zone Mr. Ashok Rawat Ji.
1. Monthly salary
2. Details of his children with age; how many are school going; their monthly school fee and other expenditure; name of school
3. Whether any transportation is availed of by the children; if yes, give details
4. Whether he is in possession of his own house or in Govt. Accommodation; if it is on private rent the details of the rent agreement be supplied.
5. Whether he has any immovable property in his name, his wife’s name or in the name of his children.’
6. Whether any immovable property was purchased after entering into service in MCD in Delhi.
7. Details of property which was disclosed by him at the time of joining.
8. Details of anything more than Rs.10,000/- which was purchased by him during his service, with date when the appropriate disclosure was made to the department and the same was duly assessed in his assessment of the financial year.
9. Whether the Government vehicle was being utilised for personal use or not.”
2.2 Initially, by a letter dated 17.03.2009, the Public Information officer (PIO) of MCD declined to provide any information, inter alia, stating that the information as sought by respondent was not ‘information’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
2.3 The respondent’s application was transferred to the concerned PIO by a letter dated 25.05.2009. Thereafter, the concerned PIO of MCD sent a letter dated 18.06.2009 declining to provide information sought at serial nos.5, 6 and 7 in the RTI application, for the following reasons:-
“The information sought for by the applicant through this point, being secret documents/information which cannot be disclosed in the absence of a general or special order, under provisions of GIO (S.O.114) under sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) rules. 964 Clause 110 of the “Manual of Office Procedure”, Rule 11 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as the information sought for herein covers under section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
2.4 Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (hereafter ‘the FAA’) impugning the action of the PIO in denying the information sought. The FAA partially allowed the appeal by an order dated 20.05.2009 directing disclosure of information sought at serial nos.2 and 3 in the RTI application.
2.5 Aggrieved by the non-disclosure of the complete information as sought, respondent preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act.
2.6 The said appeal was allowed by the impugned order and the CIC has directed disclosure of all information pertaining to queries at serial nos.1 and 4 to 9. The CIC rejected MCD’s contention that the information as sought for by respondent was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The CIC was of the view that disclosure of information pertaining to assets of public servants which is collected by a public authority cannot be construed as invasion of the privacy of an individual.
3. Ms. Biji Rajesh, learned counsel for the MCD contended that information regarding the pers
