Information regarding the identity of an official handling a complaint is disclosable under the RTI Act, 2005, whereas enquiry reports are protected under Section 8(1)(h) during the pendency of an investigation.

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st respondent herein submitted a complaint regarding the affairs of an assessee under the provisions of the GST Act before the Chief Minister, which was subsequently transferred to the Goods and Services Tax Department. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent submitted Ext.P1 application seeking information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). As many as five items of information were sought by the 1^st respondent. However, with respect to two items, the details were not provided by the State Public Information Officer.

2. According to the petitioners, insofar as information No.2 sought by the 1^st respondent—namely, details regarding the officer to whom the complaint was forwarded for follow-up action—the same need not be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Similarly, the information relating to the further action taken on the complaints submitted by the 1^st respondent was also not furnished, relying upon Section 8(1)(h)

of the Act.

3. Since the appeal against Ext.P2 was unsuccessful, the 1^st respondent preferred a further appeal before the State Information Commission—the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent disposed of the appeal by Ext.P7 order, holding that even in respect of the 2^nd item of information referred to above, the 1^st respondent ought to have provided the information. Challenging Ext.P7 order, the captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

4. I have heard Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners, as well as Sri. Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The short issue arising for consideration, as noticed earlier, is whether the findings contained in Ext.P7, particularly with reference to the interpretation placed on Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(h) of the Act by the original authority, and as tinkered by the 2^nd respondent herein, are justified or not.

6. As regards the second item of information, which was originally denied, the original authority took the stand that the details need not be furnished in view of the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The said view was rejected by the Appellate Authority—the 2^nd petitioner herein.

7. At the same time, with regard to the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, the 2^nd respondent found that the details regarding the officer to whom the complaints were forwarded for further action were liable to be furnished to the 1^st respondent. The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act can be invoked only in situations involving personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest.

8. In the case on hand, the 1^st respondent had merely sought the details of the officer concerned and not the particulars of the assessee or any other personal information of the assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act were not attracted, as rightly found by the 2^nd respondent.

9. But as regards the 5^th information sought for, the 2^nd respondent has, in principle, accepted the case of the petitioners that since enquiry is going on embargo under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act is applicable. But even after finding so, which in my opinion is perfectly legal, the 2^nd respondent has directed that copies of the documents sought for by the 1^st respondent, be provided to him. The documents sought for were the copies of enquiry report, which need not be served to 1^st respondent in view of the finding under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.

Subject to the above modification, Ext.P7 is sustained.

This writ petition is disposed o