W.P.No. 10663/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 187 DAY OF JULY 2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr, JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, WRIT PETITION No,10663/2006 (GM-RI BETWEEN; H.E.Rajashekarappa, Aged about 53 years, S/o.H.Eshwarappa, Joint Director (Statistics), On Deputation Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services Dept., Podium Block, Ambedkar Veedbi, Bangalore-560 091. 1+ PETITIONER (By Sri.M.S.Prathima, Adv, for Sri.S.V.Norasimban, Adv.) AND: 1. State Public Information Officer & Under Secretary to Government, Plancing & Statiatics Dept, M.S.Building, Bangalore-569 001. 2. Joint Secretary to Government, Planning & Statistics Dept., & Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, IV Floor, M.S.Building Bangalore-S60 001,W.P.No.10663/2006 3. Sri.0.Narasimha Murthy, Major, Retired Statistical Inspector, R/o.Matadha Kurubarahatty, Chitradurga Taluk & Dist. ~- RESPONDENTS (By Sri.M.T.Jagan Mohan, Adv. for R-3, SrLR.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HOGP for R-1 & 2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the onler dt30.6.2006 in the Gppeal under Section 19(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2008 of the 20 Respondent-Annexure-Gi & affirm the oider passed by the 1% Respondent dated 22.4.2006-Annexnz ‘i? and ete, This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court mede the fullowing:- ORDER ‘The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 30.06.2006 at Annexure ‘G’, 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ Petition may be sivied as under: The Respondent No.3 who is a retired Statistical Inspector, made an application dated 17.03.2006 (Annexure-B) to the 1 Respondent to furnish copy of Assets and Liabilities statement of the petitioner for the period 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. TheW.P.No. [9663/2006 Petitioner filed his objections to the application, ‘The Respondent No.1, considering the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, rejected the application by an onder at Annexure ‘F’, Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 15{8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Respondent Mo. 2/ Appellate Authority. The Respondent No.2/Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to famish the details sought for by the Keepondent No.3, ‘Therefore, the Petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the impugned order at Annexure ‘’ on the file of Respondent No.2. S: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondeat No.3 had no locus-standi to seek the details of Petitioner's Azsets and Liabilities statement and the personal information of the petitioner sought for is not pertaining to public alfair of the public authority, But, the Respondent No.2/Appellate Authority erred in setting aside the order made by Respondent No.1 end divecting the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for iy the Respondent No.3. oW.P.No. 10663/2006 4. It is necessary to refer and excerpt Section 2(f, {h), (j) and Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, ‘dhe Act). “2 ( “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, _pepers, sampkes, models, data materiel held in any electronic form and information relating to any Private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law fov the time being in force; fl... ta (b} “public authority’ means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituied- (a) by or vader the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; {cl by any other law made by State Legislature; (4) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any- (9 body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (i) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or koW.P.No. 16663/2006 indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; @ eee Punseer () ‘right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (). inspection of work, documents, records; (i) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of docuinents or records; (ii) taking certiied samples of material; (iv) obiaining informotion in the form of disketies, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or i any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.” 5. The object of the Act is to provide right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in ordex to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In view of the above provisions exce.pied, it cannot be said that Section 2(f) of the Act encompasses the personal information of the officials of the public authority. The intention of the legislation is to provide right to information to a citizen pertaining to public affairs of the public authority. Therefore, f YeeW.P.No. 10663/2006 the respondent No.3 had no right under the Act to sex personal information of the petitioner. The respondent No.2/appellate authority has crred in directing the petitioner io furnish the information as sought for by the respondent No.3. As the Tespondent’s application is vexaiious and it is an attempt made to Settle scores with the petitioner, it is @ fit case to impose heavy costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.3 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with #Ra.5,000/~ costs of Gesosco) ia favour of the petitioner and against at respondent No.3, “fhe~iimpugned order dated 30.6.2006 at Annexure-G is quashed. ‘The respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit costs of R8.8,000/- in this Const within three months from today. Sd/- Judge bnv * Corrected vide Court Order dated 12,9.2008 (