AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.
The petitioner has come forward to challenge the order of the third respondent, i.e. The Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent of Post
Offices, Gudur Division, State of Andhrapradesh, challenging the order, dated 16.5.2008 which was confirmed by the second respondent vide his
order, dated 2.7.2008 and the first respondent''s order dated 1.5.2009. After setting aside those orders the petitioner wanted the information
sought in his application, dated 11.3.2008 u/s 6 of the Right To Information Act (for short RTI Act).
In his representation, dated 11.3.2008, the petitioner sought for an information relating to one K.Ramachandra Rao, a retired time-scale Sub-
Post Master, who was drawing his pension from Gudur Head Post Office, Nellore District. In the residential address of the said person given in the
official document, i.e. No. 4/7/156, Nelcost Road, Gudur, Nellore District, State of Andhrapradesh, he was not available. The reason why the
petitioner wanted to know his address was that the petitioner had secured a judgment and decree against him before the VII Assistant City Civil
Court, Chennai in O.S. No. 764 of 1997, dated 16.12.1998. The petitioner wanted to execute the decree. Therefore, he wanted his address.
However, the petitioner was informed that the information sought for cannot be granted to him since the reasons adduced by him were not
convincing and the representation related to private litigation cases between the petitioner and the retired pensioner Ramachandra Rao and it did
not come under the purview of a Public Interest Litigations.
The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order to the second respondent. In the appeal, the petitioner stated that the said Ramachandra
Rao had committed forgery and the Court had also awarded costs in his civil suit. Therefore, he was not able to take further civil and criminal
action against him. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal in terms of Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 11 of the Act. It was stated that there is no
relationship with any public activity or interest and the information sought for related to a third party. Such information cannot be furnished as no
public interest was involved.
The petitioner filed a second appeal, dated 25.7.2008 before the first respondent. It was stated that the information is required for the legal
prosecution of Government of India''s pensioner. The said person is liable for criminal prosecution. Hence the information sought for was neither
prohibited u/s 8(j) nor under 8(d) of the RTI Act.
The first respondent, by an order, dated 1.5.2009 in paragraph 5 held as follows:
The Commission observed, based on the documents provided, that there is a private litigation case between the Appellant and Mr.
Ramachandra Rao and that there is no relationship of the disclosure with any public activity or interest and is of the opinion that the address can be
provided by the Court to the Applicant, if required and denies the information u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
It is this order which is under challenge. Notice was issued to the respondents. The third respondent had also filed a counter affidavit, dated
25.9.2009, justifying the denial of information. In paragraphs 21 and 22 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows:
I submit that the petitioner states that no prejudice will be caused to the said pensioner Sri.K.Ramachandra Rao if his residence address is
furnished and he is liable for criminal prosecution for having committed forgery in production of promissory note. This department is no way
connection with these things.
I submit that there is no violation of Article 14, 16 & 19 of Constitution of India as alleged in this para since the information was not furnished
as it relates to personal information and has not relationship to any public activity or interest u/s 8(1)J of RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure-R2).
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the information sought for by him?
The exemptions for refusing to grant information is listed u/s 8(1) of the RTI Act. It is relevant to extract the relevant exemptions found in
Sections 8(1)(d),(e),(g),(h) and (j) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:
8(1)(d)information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(e) 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;
....
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance
given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
....
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or
the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
It can be seen that the refusal by the respondents was not hit by any of the exemptions provided above. In this context, it is necessary to refer
to certain legal precedents which may have a bearing on this issue.
This Court vide its judgment in V.V. Mineral v. The Director of Geology & mining, Chennai and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 394 held that
the motive of a person seeking information is not relevant with reference to a third party documents. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment,
it was observed as follows:
From the above it is clear that when RTI Act was enacted it does not give any full immunity for disclosure of a third party document. But, on
the other hand, it gives the authorities under RTI Act to weight the pros and cons of weighing the conflict of interest between private commercial
interest and public interest in the disclosure of such information.
Therefore, no total immunity can be claimed by any so-called third party. Further, if it is not a matter covered by Section 8(1)(d) of the Act,
the question of any denial by the Information Officer does not arise. Therefore, on appeal preferred by the petitioner, the first respondent held that
it is not an issue covered by Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. If it is only covered by Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, the question of denial of information by
the authority may arise.
Subsequently, this Court in A.C. Sekar Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, The Special Officer, H.H. 517 Vettavalam
Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank and G. Azhagammal, held that an information even relating to the attendance put in by a third party was
considered to be relevant and such information cannot be denied on the ground that it is coming under the private domain. In paragraph 9 of the
said judgment, it was observed as follows:
Therefore, the attempt of the petitioner to thwart the direction issued by the first respondent cannot be countenanced by this Court. In fact, in
these days, when there is an increasing allegation of misfeasance and malfeasance committed in fair price shops are coming to the notice of the
public, the RTI Act can be potent weapon to check such illegal and criminal activities of the staff employed in those shops. If ultimately by
furnishing of such information, the affairs of the Society can be brought to the attention of the authorities, who are in charge of supply of essential
commodities, it can stem the tide of further rot into the system.
Similarly, when the list of loan defaulters together with their photographs were sought to be published by the Nationalized Bank in
Newspapers, the same was challenged by placing reliance upon the right to privacy and also by stating that the Banking Laws provided secrecy
clause. V. Ramasubramanian, J. vide his judgment in Mr. K.J. Doraisamy Vs. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode Branch
and The Chief Manager (PBD), State Bank of India, Erode Branch (0837), rejected such claims. In doing so, he also placed reliance upon the
provisions of the RTI Act and rejected the right of privacy claimed by the petitioner therein. In paragraph 31, he has observed as follows:
Lastly, with the advent of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Bank has become obliged to disclose information to the public. Section 3 of
the said Act entitles all citizens to a right to information. Section 4(2) of the said Act provides as follows:
(2)It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) to
provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the
public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
Public Authority is defined u/s 2(h) of the Act to include ""any body owned, controlled or substantially financed"". Therefore, the respondent Bank is
a Public Authority within the meaning of the Act and they owe a duty to disseminate information even suo moto. Certain exemptions are listed out
u/s 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, two of which are of significance and they read as follows:
-omitted-
Thus the aforesaid provision leaves no room for any doubt that the ''Right to Privacy'' fades out in front of the ''Right to Information'' and ''larger
public interest''.
The said judgment was also confirmed by a division bench of this Court.
If it is seen in the context of the above legal precedents, the petitioner''s demand for the residential address of a Central Government pensioner
would be denied solely on the ground that the petitioner is pursuing a private civil litigation and therefore, such an information could not be
furnished.
In the present case, the motive for the demand for a Central Government pensioner''s exact whereabouts in execution of a civil court''s decree
may not be irrelevant. Whether the pensioner really exists on the date of receipt of his pension or whether any fraudulent claims are being made
from the Central Government can also be a relevant factor. In those cases, if any person wants to find out whether the pension amount paid by the
Central Government is really going to an actual beneficiary or bogus claims are being made, such information cannot be denied.
In the present case, a third party though had admittedly given an address in which address he was not to be found. The court notices could not
be served on him. Whereas, he is getting pension from a particular post office regularly. A question came up before the Supreme Court as to
whether a pensioner goes out of control of the Government once he retired from service and becomes a pensioner. After referring to the relevant
rule, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. M.H. Mazumdar, observed as follows:
The aforesaid two rules empower government to reduce or withdraw a pension. Rule 189 contemplates withholding or withdrawing of a pension
or any part of it if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct while he was in service or after the completion of his service. Grant of pension
and its continuance to a government servant depend upon the good conduct of the government servant. Rendering satisfactory service maintaining
good conduct is a necessary condition for the grant and continuance of Pension. Rule 189 expressly confers power on the government to withhold
or withdraw any part of the pension payable to a government servant for misconduct which he may have committed while in service. This rule
further provides that before any order reducing or withdrawing any part of the pension is made by the competent authority the pensioner must be
given opportunity of defence in accordance with the procedure specified in note I to Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal Rules. The State Government''s power to reduce or withhold pension by taking proceedings against a government servant even after his
retirement is expressly preserved by the aforesaid rules. The validity of the rules was not challenged either before the High Court or before this
Court. In this view, the government has power to reduce the amount of pension payable to the respondent. In M. Narasimhachar Vs. The State of
Mysore, and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, similar rules authorising the government to withhold or reduce the
pension granted to the government servant were interpreted and this Court held that merely because a government servant retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation he could not escape the liability for misconduct and negligence or financial irregularities which he may have
committed during the period of his service and the government was entitled to withhold or reduce the pension granted to a government servant.
Therefore, if it is seen in the above context, a pensioner does not cease to become totally out of control from the Government. On the
contrary, his conduct and character are continuously monitored by the Central Government. In that context, the whereabouts of such pensioner is
also very much relevant and it cannot be a private information. The authorities are bound to help in execution of Court orders.
Instances are many and news is coming from many parts of India that pension claims are made even in the name of dead persons. Therefore,
such information cannot be shut out when a query is made regarding the real address of a Government pensioner.
In the light of the above, the impugned orders stands set aside. The writ petition will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to furnish the
correct address of K.Ramachandra Rao to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
the connected MP stands closed.