ORDER :

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the orders made in case No.1080/Enquiry/D/2014( 13913 and 28472) /D/2014 dated 27.7.2015 served on 24.8.2015 and quash the same.

This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the Registrar, State Information Commission, Chennai in his proceedings D/2014 (13913 and 28472)/D/2014) dated 27.07.2015 signed on 13.08.2015. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

2. By the impugned order, the first respondent has accepted the petition filed by the second respondent and has imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act, 2005 for declaring to furnish information sought for by the second respondent.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was an employee of the Tamil Nadu Adidravidar Housing and Development Corporation (TAHDCO) and was suspended from service after conducting an enquiry on 29.06.2011 and thereafter was imposed with a fine of Rs.3,15,000/-. Frustrated with the punishment imposed, the second respondent abused the provisions of the RTI Act and preferred about 18 different applications and sought for information’s which pertained to other co-delinquents. It is submitted that the information’s sought for by the second respondent were not furnished as they were personal in nature. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner as a Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was liable to be quashed and interfered with.

4. This writ petition is defended by the learned counsel for the first respondent stating that the impugned order is well-reasoned and requires no interference. It is submitted that, apart from the second respondent, the others were also subjected to certain disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the second respondent wanted the informations regarding the punishment and the fine imposed on the other co-delinquents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that these informations cannot be furnished as they were third private informations and are not required to be furnished under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that the co-delinquents also objected to furnish the informations sought for and therefore the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be interfered.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned counsel for the first respondent. The disclosure of information which the petitioner had refused to part with as a Public Information Officer pertain to the punishment imposed on other Co- delinquents who were punished along with the second respondent can be denied only if the third party information regarding the punishment imposed on the co-delinquent were classified as “confidential”.

7. Under section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 only those information which are treated as confidential information, notice is to be issued to the third party regarding the proposed disclosure of information or record or part thereof, and invite such third party to give a submission either in writing or orally, as to whether such information sought for could be disclosed or not. Only under those circumstances, the submission of such third-party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Act, reads as under:-

1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been