RTI
Disclosing
information relating to a pensioner cannot be denied to the requestor invoking
section 8(1) r/w section 11 of the RTI Act. The motive of the applicant is
irrelevant in as much as denial is based on that.
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED
: 18.11.2009
CORAM THE
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.NO.16070
of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2009
M.Kaliaperumal
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Central
Information Commissioner, New Delhi‐110
067.
2.The Appellate Authority‐cum‐ Director of Postal Services, O/o the Post Master General, Vijayawada‐520 010. State of Andrapradesh.
3.The Public
Information Officer‐cum‐ Superintendent of Post Offices, Gudur Division, Gudur (NL)‐524 101. State of Andhrapradesh
.. Respondents
This
writ
This writ petition prays
for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from
the third respondent's impugned order (Proc.No.E/AC/Mis./Dlgs/2008‐ 09/Gudur, dated
16.05.2008 which was confirmed by the second respondent's impugned order
Proc.No.PG/RTI Act 61/2008, Vijayawada‐10,
dated 2.7.2008) and the first respondent's impugned order (CIC/AD/A/09/00413,
dated 01.05.2009,) quash the same and to direct the respondents to furnish the
information sought for as per petitioner's application dated 11.3.2008 under
Section 6 of RTI Act.
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.
The above order dated
16.5.2008 was confirmed by the second respondent vide his order, dated 2.7.2008.
After setting aside those orders the petitioner wanted the information sought
in his application, dated 11.3.2008 under Section 6 of the Right To Information
Act (for short RTI Act).
The petitioner
sought, by his representation, dated 11.3.2008, 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. The said Ramachandra
Rao was not available. in the residential address(i.e. No.4/7/156, Nelcost
Road, Gudur, Nellore District, State of Andhrapradesh) given in the official records.
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.
Thereafter 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 CIC, the first respondent. The
first respondent[ CIC, New Delhi) , by an order, dated 1.5.2009 in paragraph 5
held as follows:
"5.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 under Section 8(1)(g) of the
RTI Act."
It is this order
which is under challenge.
After
hearing the parties, the Court observed:
“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 under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
It can be seen that the refusal by the respondents was not hit
by any of the exemptions provided above.
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.
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.”
K.CHANDRU,
J
(Not to be taken as official copy of judgment. Extracted
from the original. Emphasis supplied.)
No comments:
Post a Comment