Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
R.S. Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8352 of 2018; Civil Miscellaneous Applicaion No. 32050 of 2018
Decided On : 12-05-2020
R.S. Gupta (Petitioner In Person), Advocate, Gautam Narayan, Advocate, Shivani Vij, Advocate, Dacchita Shahi, Advocate, Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate, Nitin Jain, Advocate
The overriding effect of the RTI Act and the exemption from disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Right to Information - Impugned order under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001 - Section 22, Section 8(1)(j) - The court upheld the impugned order refusing to provide complete copies of school staff attendance registers, citing invasion of privacy and lack of larger public interest. The court also emphasized the overriding effect of the RTI Act and the exemption from disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001 regarding school staff attendance registers, but the appeal was disposed of without proper hearing by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order rightly refused to provide complete copies of school staff attendance registers, citing invasion of privacy and lack of larger public interest. The court also noted that the hearing was given by the appellate authority and there was no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal to provide complete copies of school staff attendance registers, the validity of the impugned order, and the conduct of the appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the overriding effect of the RTI Act and the exemption from disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j), concluding that there was no merit in the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Jayant Nath, J. - This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the order passed by respondent No.3 under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as DRTI Act).
2. On 24.5.2017 the petitioner filed an application under the DRTI Act, 2001 seeking following information before respondent No.5 and respondent No. 6 from respondent No.9 i.e. Principal, Geeta Sr. Secondary School No.2, Sultanpuri, Delhi:-
"1. A complete and certified copy of the SchoolStaff Attendance Register of Geeta Senior Sec. School No.2, Sultanpuri from January, 2012 to May, 2017 /till the date of supply of information.
2. A certified copy of the RESOLUTION passed by School Managing Committee & Chairman, Hindu Shiksha Samiti to mark in the Attendance Register as "ON H.S.S. DUTY" along with period as for how long this resolution is valid to mark "ON H.S.S. DUTY" and the its complete provisions and criteria to apply for daily for a week/weekly/ fortnightly/monthly/minimum/maximum type of employees/ teachers/ Teachers Representatives/ Principal/Vice Principals caste of employees/flatterers/ paralysis employees.
3. A certified copy of the approval obtained from Director of Education to mark in the Attendance Register "ON H.S.S. DUTY".
4. Any other information in this regards may be provided."
3. On 20.07.2017 the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 under section 7 of the DRTI Act, 2001 as it is pleaded that the petitioner failed to get the necessary information.
4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 fixed the date of hearing as 4.9.2017. On the said date, namely, 4.9.2017 respondent No.2 passed an order directing respondent No.6 to provide information whether attendance record is submitted alongwith monthly salary bills from aided schools to release their salary through ECS. The next date of hearing was fixed as 11.12.2017. However, subsequently by corrigendum the said date was changed to 12.2.2018.
5. Grievance of the petitioner is that in the hearing that took place on 12.2.2018 one Shri P.K.Sharma, UDC/Steno conducted the hearing instead of the appellate authority respondent No. 2/3. However, respondent No.3 without having attended the hearing is said to have disposed of the appeal vide impugned order dated 21.3.2018. The petitioner is said to have protested on 13.2.2018 through an email and requested for re-conducting the hearing. A request was also sent on 5.3.2018 to re-conduct the hearing. On 26.3.2018 the petitioner served a legal notice. Hence, the present petition.
6. I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondent. Both the parties have also filed written submissions.
7. The petitioner in his written submissions has reiterated that in the impugned order the respondent No.3 has mentioned date as 23.3.2018. It is stated that this is not the date of the order but is the date of dispatch of the order. It is further stated that respondent No.3 had no official power to work as an Appellate Authority as the order of the LG appointing respondent No.3 as the Appellate Authority was received on/after 22.3.2018.
It is also reiterated that the appeal was heard by Shri P.K.Sharma, Upper Division Clerk in the Conference Room in the absence of the Appellate Authority. It is also pleaded that the impugned order is even otherwise erroneous as it wrongly records the submission of DDE that copy of attendance register of the school staff concerned need not be sent alongwith the monthly salary bills to the department. Reliance is placed on RTI replies of different schools who have said that the schools are enclosing records of attendance of the employees.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the Department of Education on 1.9.2017 had supplied the information in respect of the attendance record of the petitioner. However, Attendance Register with salary slip of other employees cannot be provided, same being a third party information, under section 8(
