LPA 714/2010 Page 1 of 17

$~33

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 714/2010

%

Date of decision : 9^th May, 2017

STATE BANK OF INDIA

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Rajiv Kapur and

Mr. Nishant Katariya, Advs.

versus

MOHD SAHJAHAN

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anuj Kr. Ranjan, Adv.

with respondent in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

1.

The challenge in this intra-court appeal is to the order

dated 9^th July, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in a

writ petition filed by the petitioner impugning the order

dated 19^th May, 2009 passed by the Central Information

Commissioner (CIC) in the appeal filed by the respondent

herein directing the Central Public Information Officer of the

appellant to provide certain information. Vide the impugned

order dated 9^th July, 2010, the learned Single Judge has

dismissed the writ petition and directed the information

sought by the respondent to be disclosed by the appellant

which is with regard to disaggregate marks awarded to him

2017:DHC:2508-DB

LPA 714/2010 Page 2 of 17

in the promotion process.

2.

The facts as noted by the learned Single Judge are in

paras 5 and 6 to 10 of the impugned order. For expediency,

we extract the same hereunder :

this type of applications?”

2017:DHC:2508-DB

LPA 714/2010 Page 3 of 17

off for pass?”

2017:DHC:2508-DB

LPA 714/2010 Page 4 of 17

2017:DHC:2508-DB

LPA 714/2010 Page 5 of 17

the cases.”

3.

We may note that though, as noted in the impugned

order in para 6 above, the respondent had sought information

in terms of serial no.(IV) above, regarding written, interview

marks and marks obtained in PAF of the Promotion

Examinations of four backward OBC candidates organised

on 30^th December, 2007. During the course of submissions

before this court, learned counsel for the respondent, on

instructions from the respondent who is present in person

states that the respondent confines his request to his own

marks.

4.

It is the submission of Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned

counsel for the appellant that the information that was

required to be given to the respondent was with respect to

the detailed marks in the written examination, interview and

the marks obtained in PAF of the promotion examination to

the Officer Cadre. He states that the said information could

not have been supplied to the respondent as the disclosure of

the information would result in violation of Section 5 of the

Official Secrets Act, 1923 by the appellant.

2017:DHC:2508-DB

LPA 714/2010 Page 6 of 17

5.

It is further submitted that this information is

exempted under Section 8(e) of the Right to Information Act

which inter alia contemplates that there is no obligation to

give information available to a person in his fiduciary

relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that

the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such

information. In other words, it is his submission that the

disclosure of the marks would breach the fiduciary

relationship the SBI has with the superior officer.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in so far

as the plea of Mr. Kapur that the disclosure of the marks

shall breach Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act is

concerned, suffice to state that such a plea