Section 8 (1) (j) or Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act,

Punjab and Hariyana High Court, in CWP-24219-2015 ,  JAINARAYAN JAKHAR V/S CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS -*- honorable judge (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

held as below

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by the First Appellate Authority to contend that the First Appellate Authority has proceeded to deny the petitioner the information relying upon the provisions of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act'). He contends that the reason which has been assigned for not supplying the information to the petitioner is that the third party qua whom information has been sought by the petitioner, have not consented to supply the said information. He, thus, contends that nothing has been said in the order as to how it would fall within the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act especially when it is not mentioned that the disclosure of the said information would, in any manner, be against the public interest or would harm or injure the third party. He, thus, contends that the mandate of Section 11 of the RTI Act was required to be fulfilled while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for supplying the said information. He further contends that Section 11 would not be operative independently and it has to 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2021 09:59:56 ::: (2) CWP-24219-2015 be read in consonance with Section 8 of the RTI Act, which exempts from disclosure of information as specified therein, clause 1 (j) thereof relates to the personal information and since there is no reference to Section 8 (1) (j) while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the decision as taken by the Public Information officer and the First Appellate Authority cannot sustain. Similar is the position with regard to the order which has been passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, while passing the order dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-11). He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside especially in the light of the information which has been restricted by the petitioner to be supplied to him as referred to in order dated 07.08.2018 passed by this Court in this case. Prayer has, thus, been made for allowing the present writ petition to the said extent. 

...

6. Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act operates in three steps, first, where the Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'PIO') as appointed by the Public Authority under the RTI Act, receives an 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2021 09:59:56 ::: (5) CWP-24219-2015 application for disclosure of information under the RTI Act, considers the same and intends to disclose the information or record or part thereof at the request of the applicant. On reaching this conclusion, the second step is that if the said information relates to the third party and the decision as taken by the PIO/Competent Authority with regard to an intention to disclose the said information or record of part thereof, which relates to the third party, the said party is required to be called upon and make submission within the time which falls within the time stipulated under sub-section 2 of Section 11. The third step would be, in case representation is received within the time as stipulated from the third party, a decision with regard to the disclosure of the information or otherwise has to be taken by the PIO/Competent Authority on consideration of response received, within the time specified for supplying the information. 7. Therefore, three steps which are required to be kept in view are; firstly, decision on the part of the PIO/Competent Authority on consideration of the application received under the RTI Act, as to whether the information which is being sought can be disclosed or not as per the said Act and if, the said authority intends to do so, only then the second step comes into play with regard to seeking the submission/response or consent of the third party. In case, representation is received from the third party, the final decision is to be taken by the PIO/Competent Authority as per the provisions of the Act that would be the third step. 8. In the present case, the decision and the intent on the part of the Public Information Officer with regard to the disclosure of the 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2021 09:59:56 ::: (6) CWP-24219-2015 information/record or part thereof had already been taken. It is thereafter only that the response of the third party was called upon. It is an admitted position that the third party was called upon on various occasions by the said authority and it is thereafter that the third party had objected to the same to be disclosed. Mere objection on the part of the third party cannot be made the basis for denying the information to be supplied to the petitioner because a final decision has to be taken by the PIO/Competent Authority. An independent decision had to be taken by the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority as the case may be and it is, after such an independent decision having been taken about the disclosure as to whether it falls within the proviso as provided for under the Section 11 (1) that the said information may be not supplied or otherwise. 9. In the present case, the requirement of proviso has not been fulfilled as there is nothing in the order as passed by the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority indicating such aspect. What has simply been said by the Appellate Authority is that the consent has not been given by the third party and therefore, the impugned orders cannot sustain.

10. This Court has considered the information which is now being sought by the petitioner as has been detailed in the order dated 07.08.2018 and is satisfied that the same would not fall within the preview of the provisions as contained in Section 8 (1) (j) or Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, especially the requirement of proviso having not been fulfilled which would have exempted the information to be supplied to the petitioner as has been sought.

11. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. Puneet Kumar's case (supra) cannot be pressed into service as the said judgment has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act, which did not require the disclosure which was being projected in the said judgment to be the basis for denying the petitioner the information. Even Section 11 of the RTI Act has also not been taken into consideration. On facts also, the case is distinguishable. 12. In view of the above, direction is issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to supply the information relating to Columns No.9 to 15 and 18 in the proforma for Recommending NSS Volunteers for National Indira Gandhi NSS Awards (Annexure P-2) along with the documents appended in support of the respective columns to the petitioner as sought by him within a period of six weeks.