The Right to Information Act, 2005 emphasizes the citizen's right to access information concerning the decision-making process and government services, and the motive of the individual seeking information is irrelevant when it comes to public documents.

K. Chandru, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the first respondent and perused the records.

2. The petitioner is a salesman in the second respondent Bank and has filed the present writ petition against the direction given by the Deputy Registrar (first respondent) to the second respondent to furnish the information sought for by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the third respondent's son was a member of the Marxist Party and was sending petitions to the higher officials as the petitioner had denied mamool to be given to him frequently. The said person, by name, Thirumoorthy, had sought for certain information under the Right to Information Act [for short, 'RTI Act']. On the basis of the request made by him, the said person was directed to pay Rs. 25,405/- towards the cost of furnishing the said information in terms of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005. The said Thirumoorthy did not pursue his request. But, on the contrary, set up his mother the third respondent for getting the information, which was earlier sought for by her son. She also claimed that she comes below the poverty line and produced a certificate from the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat, Vettavalam. Her request was conceded by the first respondent and accordingly, the second respondent Special Officer was directed to furnish the said information without insisting any payment. But the petitioner, aggrieved by the said direction, has come forward to file the present writ petition challenging the said direction.

3. Mr. C. Prakasam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent had committed a fraud in producing a certificate stating that she belongs to below poverty line category even though her sons are working and she owns some land in the village. Further, she has been set up by her son, who made an application seeking for the very same information and when he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 25,405/-, he did not pay the said amount and, therefore, on these grounds, no information should be furnished to the third respondent. Further, if such information was furnished, the Society will become poorer as the cost of furnishing such information has been worked out nearly to Rs. 25,000/- earlier. The information was also sought for to blackmail the employees working in the second respondent Society and, therefore, the same should not be furnished.

4. The information that was sought for by the third respondent was the details regarding the 7 ration shops run by the second respondent Society and the Sales Register maintained by the petitioner during the relevant period as well as the daily sales details, Stock Register and leave details of the petitioner for the relevant period. First of all, the communication that has been attacked by the petitioner is only an inter-office communication between the respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same.

5. Inasmuch as the petitioner has been working in a shop in which the commodities of the public distribution system are being dealt with, the petitioner cannot claim any right of privacy if those details are furnished to any citizen, who seeks such an information. It is not as if the third respondent is a stranger to the institution from which the information is sought for. But rather she is a beneficiary and a consumer of the products sold to the public on a State subsidy and, therefore, she, as a citizen as well as a beneficiary of the consumer from the said shop, is entitled to seek the said information.

6. Considering the scope of the RTI Act, this Court by a judgment in Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School rep. By its Secretary and Correspondent, Erode District v. Union of India rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi and Ors. (2007) 3 MLJ 77 aft