Advocates:
JATIN ZAVERI

Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special

Leave

Petition

(Civil)

No.

27734

of

2012

(@ CC 14781/2012)

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande

.. Petitioner

Versus

Cen. Information Commr. & Ors.

.. Respondents

O

R D

E R

1.

Delay condoned.

2.

We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether

the Central Information Commissioner (for short ‘the CIC’) acting

under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’)

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

was right in denying information regarding the third respondent’s

personal matters pertaining to his service career and also denying

the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable

properties on the ground that the information sought for was

qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of

Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

3.

The petitioner herein had submitted an application on

27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

(Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various

details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an

Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in

the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15 queries were made

to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur gave

the following reply on 15.9.2008:

”As to Point No.1:

Copy of appointment order of Shri

A.B. Lute, is in 3 pages. You have

sought the details of salary in

respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

relates to personal information the

disclosures

of

which

has

no

relationship to any public activity

or

interest,

it

would

cause

unwarranted

invasion

of

the

privacy of individual hence denied

as per the RTI provision under

Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

As to Point No.2:

Copy

of

order

of

granting

Enforcement Officer Promotion to

Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 Number.

Details of salary to the post along

with

statutory

and

other

deductions of Mr. Lute is denied to

provide

as

per

RTI

provisions

under

Section

8(1)(j)

for

the

reasons mentioned above.

As to Point NO.3:

All the transfer orders of Shri A.B.

Lute, are in 13 Numbers. Salary

details is rejected as per the

provision under Section 8(1)(j) for

the reason mentioned above.

As to Point No.4:

The copies of memo, show cause

notice, censure issued to Mr. Lute,

are not being provided on the

ground

that

it

would

cause

unwarranted

invasion

of

the

privacy of the individual and has no

relationship to any public activity

or

interest.

Please

see

RTI

provision under Section 8(1)(j).

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

As to Point No.5:

Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions)

Rules 1962 is in 60 pages.

As to Point No.6:

Copy of return of assets and

liabilities in respect of Mr. Lute

cannot be provided as per the

provision of RTI Act under Section

8(1)(j) as per the reason explained

above at point No.1.

As to Point No.7:

Details of investment and other

related details are rejected as per

the provision of RTI Act under

Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason

explained above at point No.1.

As to Point No.8:

Copy of report of item wise and

value wise details of gifts accepted

by Mr. Lute, is rejected as per the

provisions of RTI Act under Section

8(1)(j) as per the reason explained

above at point No.1.

As to Point No.9:

Copy

of

details

of

movable,

immovable properties of Mr. Lute,

the request to provide the same is

rejected as per the RTI Provisions

under Section 8(1)(j).

As to Point No.10:

Mr. Lute is not claiming for TA/DA

for attending the criminal case

pending at JMFC, Akola.

As to Point No.11:

Copy

of

Notification

is

in

2

numbers.

Page 5

JUDGMENT

5

As to Point No.12:

Copy of certified true copy of

charge sheet issued to Mr. Lute –

The matter pertains with head

Office, Mumbai. Your application is

being forwarded to Head Office,

Mumbai as per Section 6(3) of the

RTI Act, 2005.

As to Point N