SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
L Narasimha Reddy, J.
Kunche Durga Prasad and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
The Public Information Officer,
Rajahmundry and Ors. —Respondents
W.P. No. 443/10
Decided on 20.1.2010

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Ramalinga Swamy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ponnan Ashok Goud, (Asstt. Solicitor General) Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Information which can be sought would be in respect of functioning of the Government and public activity and information relating to an individual cannot be equated to public activity.

Headnote:(i) Right to information Act, 2005, Sections 6(2), 8—Obligation to give an information—Exemption from—Exemption attracted in two circumstances—If information is personal in nature and has no relationship with public activity or interest and furnishing of same would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual. (Para 6)

       (ii) Right to information Act, 2005, Sections 6(2), 8—Constitution of India Articles 19, 21—Right to information—Fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21—Information relating to an individual—Cannot be compared with public activity—Section 6(2) enables every individual to such information without disclosing purpose—Information that can be furnished to him is subject to restrictions placed under section 8 of the Act. (Paras 8, 10)

       Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

L Narasimha Reddy, J.—Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘ONGC’) issued advertisement dated 03.01.2008 inviting applications for appointment to the post of ‘Field Officer’. The 1st petitioner and several others applied for the said post. In the selection, 285 candidates were selected and appointed, whereas the 1st petitioner was not selected. The 1st petitioner and 16 others filed W.P. No. 17355 of 2008 before this Court challenging the selection.

2. The 2nd petitioner is a practicing advocate. On behalf of the 1st petitioner he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), before the 1st respondent seeking information on three aspects namely, (1) the number of SC candidates selected; (2) the name of the authority who selected the candidates; and (3) the date of issue of posting orders to 285 candidates and their dates of joining. He has also made a request to furnish copies of the qualification certificates submitted by the selected candidates. Through letter dated 13.02.2009, the 1st respondent furnished information on the three aspects referred to above. So far as furnishing of copies of qualification certificates is concerned, he took the view that it is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an appeal before, the Central Information Commission—the 3rd respondent who passed an order dated 21.05.2009 upholding the stand taken by the 1st respondent. Hence, the writ petition. Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the 1st respondent was under an obligation to furnish copies of the qualification certificates furnished by the selected candidates. He contends that the certificates referred to above do not fall within the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and that there was no justification for the respondents in not acceding to the request of the petitioners.

3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other hand, submits that the application was submitted by the 2nd petitioner and, so far as he is concerned, the certificates of qualifications, pertaining to the selected candidates, do not have traces of public activity and interest, and that furnishing of the same would” certainly invade the privacy of the concerned individuals.

4. The 1st petitioner was not selected as ‘Field Officer’. As properly advised, himself and 16 other aggrieved persons filed W.P.No.17355 of 2008 challenging the action of ONGC in not selecting them and the same is still pending.

5. Neither the 1st petitioner nor any other unsuccessful applicants have filed application before the 1st respondent pointing out any grievance. The 2nd respondent, who is an advocate, filed the application seeking information as referred to above. The.1st respondent furnished information on 13.02.2009 wherein it was mentioned that candidates were selected; not an individual officer but a committee has selected the candidates; and a list indicating the particulars of posting orders of all the 284 candidates was furnished. So far as the request to furnish the copies of qualification certificates submitted by the selected candidates is concerned, the 1st respondent took the view that such an information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The 2nd petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the 3rd respondent. The latter upheld the view taken by the 1st respondent. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the information sought for by the 2nd petitioner i.e. furnishing copies of the qualification certificates of the selected candidates is not exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

The said provision reads as under:

8. Exemption from disclosure of information:—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relation











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top