Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.1634 OF 2009(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri H.Ramakrishna Gowda Aged about 48 years Managing Director Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Limited, Post Box No.198 #42, 1st Floor, M.C & A House Miller Road, Bangalore – 560 052 Now working as Special Officer, MSIL, Cunnigham Road, Bangalore. …APPELLANT
(By Sri Nitish K.N., Advocate for Sri K.V.Narasimhan, Advocate)
AND:
Karnataka Information Commission Multi Storied Building, Bangalore Represented by its Commissioner
Sri R.Mohan Kumar No.8, Jameya Complex, Maddur Town, Mandya District. …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri E.S.Indiresh, HCGP for R1 Sri Krishna Murthy D, Advocate for R2)
*****
This Writ Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.7953/2007 dated 16.07.2008.
This Writ Appeal coming on for hearing this day, Ravi Malimath J., delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2008, passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.7953/2007, dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that various information was sought for by the respondent. He is aggrieved by that portion of the information sought for which has been produced by him at Annexure – K, to the writ petition dated 18.09.2006, wherein particulars with regard to his house, as to in whose name it is, when it was constructed, etc. has been sought for. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the instant writ petition.
The Learned Single Judge was of the view that the information sought for is not exempted and hence he is required to furnish the same. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that excluding the information as sought for in terms of Annexure – K all other information will be provided.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent contends that he will be satisfied with the same and that he will not insist on the information sought for in terms of Annexure–K, dated 08.09.2006.
It is also relevant to note that a Learned Single Judge of this Court in an unreported judgment dated 01.07.2008, in W.P. No.10663/2006, held that there was no right under the Act to seek personal information from the petitioner. Hence, the same cannot be insisted upon.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commissioner and Others, reported in SLP
(Civil) No.27734/2012, has while interpreting the clause – (e), (g), (j) of Section – 8(1) of Right to Information Act
5 noted the exemption therein. It was of the view that in the facts of the case - the details disclosed by a person in his Income tax returns are ‘personal information’ which stand exempted from disclosure under clause– (j) of Section - 8(1) of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, if such material come under clause–(j) of the Act, the same cannot be insisted upon.
We are of the considered view that the information sought for in terms of Annexure – K would necessarily come under the definition of ‘personal information’. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to furnish the said document. Under these circumstances, the Learned Single Judge committed an error in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2008, in W.P. No.7953/2007, is set- aside. The writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission,
6 dated 10.05.2007, is set-aside only to the extent of directing the petitioner to furnish particulars as stated by him in Annexure-K, dated 18.09.2006. The particulars sought for in Annexure-K need not be furnished. He shall furnish the rest of the information.
Orderd accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE