Point of Law: Proviso to clause (j) talks of information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, the disclosure of which will not be denied to any person. As far as Proviso is concerned, no such case has been set up that the ‘information’ in question was of such information which was claimed or denied or could be denied on the call of Parliament or a State Legislature. The pedestal given to a citizen at par with the these legislative bodies, is very high and unless such a case is set up, any such application cannot be taken to that higher pedestal just for the askance.

JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.7.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss Special Civil Application No. 7187 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner-Appellant Mr. Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia), Surat against the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘the RTI Act’ for short) and the private parties-Respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

2. The learned Single Judge held that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the information in the form of his Income Tax Returns, Status of Agriculturists, disclosure as Business Income or not etc. and from the concerned Authorities of the Income Tax Department under provisions of the RTI Act with respect to private Respondent M/s. Tarunkumar Kantilal Raval and others with whom the present Petitioner has some litigation with regard to the land in question, which the Petitioner claims to have purchased and was again sold by the same Seller in favour of private Respondents also who claimed to be the Agriculturists under a Will. The Petitioner came before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by him that it was a fraud played by the private Respondents upon the Revenue Authorities of the State Government and therefore, it was in the larger public interest to disclose the said ‘information’ to the Petitioner notwithstanding Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

3. The Petitioner challenged various orders passed by the concerned Authorities of the Income Tax Department acting under provisions of the RTI Act and came after exhausting the remedies available to him under the said RTI Act before the learned Single Judge.

4. We have heard Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned counsel for the Appellant at length, who took us to the various documents and the impugned orders and the provisions of the RTI Act as well as relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and certain case laws to support his contention that the Petitioner was entitled to such ‘information’ from the Income Tax Department, as it was in larger public interest to disclose such ‘information’ to the Petitioner as the Respondents have not only evaded the income tax by making wrong disclosure about their status of being Agriculturists and therefore, even though the information disclosed to the Income Tax Department by such private Respondents might amount to ‘personal information’ still it was in the larger public interest to disclose such ‘information’ to the Petitioner. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the aforesaid contentions with the following observations, which we quote for ready reference:

“6. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the kind and nature of the information demanded by the petitioner clearly falls within the expression “personal information.” The personal character of the information demanded in the nature of Income Tax Returns of the private parties to get disclosure about the payment of tax by them which was again in order to know about their status as agriculturists declared to be so by the authorities in the legal proceedings, could be indeed said to be personal. It was in the background of litigation between the petitioner and the said private persons relating to their property rights wherein the Will in favour of private parties was disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstan