IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1838 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. BABY RANI M.V. W/O MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HEAD MISTRESS & PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL SHESHAGIRIHALLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJASHEKAR M., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION MAHITHI SOUDHA M.S.BUILDING ANNEXE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159 3. SRI D.S.GURUPRASAD MAJOR, NO.185/19, 14TH MAIN ROAD DEVANATHACHAR ROAD CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU-560 018 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R2; SRI M.V.VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.KaMaHa:9629:APL-2016 VIDE ANNX-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Rajashekar M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Rajashekhar K., learned counsel for respondent no.1. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2.
Sri M.V.Vedamurthy, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashing of the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the State Information Commissioner whereby the appeal filed by respondent no.3 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to furnish information with regard to her educational qualification to respondent no.3.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition are briefly stated as under:
Respondent no.3 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘the Act’ for short) before respondent no.2 seeking information in the form of questions. The petitioner submitted her reply. Respondent no.1, by order dated 10.08.2017, directed the petitioner to furnish information as sought for by respondent no.3. Thereupon, respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice dated 14.12.2017 to the petitioner for not implementing the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.08.2017 and 14.12.2017, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 11.01.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the information sought for by respondent no.3 relates to educational qualification of the petitioner and her mark sheets which is personal information and it falls within the purview of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 3 have supported the impugned order passed by respondent no.1.
6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of both sides and perused the record.
7. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act reads as under:
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
…………………………………………………………………………………..
(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.”
From the perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is evident that the information sought for by respondent no.3 is personal information of the petitioner which is exempt under the provisions of the Act. The impugned order is therefore per se without jurisdiction and it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is quashed.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.