Judgment · High Court

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned Government Pleader for GAD and Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, leaned counsel for the contesting respondent and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. Appellants are the State and also the Pubic Information Officer, who, by way of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal, assails the order of the learned Single Judge in an interlocutory

application filed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned Single Judge directed respondents to furnish the petitioner copies of his ACRs within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not furnishing such information, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. The case of the petitioner in W.P. is that he made an application on 1.8.2008 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Union Public Service Commission, seeking to supply copies of Self Assessment Report/Part-I and the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of 18 State Civil Service Officers from 1995-96 to 2005-06 not only to him but also to some others, who are in the zone of consideration. But the respondents did not supply the copies as required by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge in an interlocutory application directed the respondents to furnish the petitioner copies of his ACRs within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondents were also directed to file counter affidavit within a period of two weeks as per the orders dated 15t h September 2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. When the matter came up yesterday i.e., on

29.09.2008 since the counter affidavit was not filed by the respondents in the W.P. they sought time for filing counter. Today counter affidavit has been filed, hence, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that having regard to the specific bar as created under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the question of entitlement of any information does not arise. Further, it is also pointed out that there is alternative remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the Act and without availing the same the writ itself is not maintainable. Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in DEV DUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, wherein it is held that ‘good’ entry be communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of that judgment.

On being communicated, the appellant may make the representation, if he so chooses, against the said entry within two months there after and the said representation will be decided within two months there from and therefore, the order impugned needs no interference. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Government Pleader raised contention as to the bar under Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act reads as under: relates information which information

8(1)(j): personal 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 the appellate Information Officer or authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

From the above, it is clear that, no doubt, such personal information cannot be furnished to any third party.