The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to supply third party information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding such supply not permissible under Section 11.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(C ) No. 288 of 2020
Shrawan Kumar
.... .. ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors.
.. ... ...Respondents
........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondents-State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III For the respondent-JSIC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
05/ 09.03.2022 .
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha has submitted that petitioner- Shrawan Kumar has preferred the instant writ petition for direction upon respondent no.2 (The Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi), respondent no.3 (Right to Information Officer cum The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi), respondent no.4 (Right to Information Officer cum The District Project Education Officer, at JAP Campus, Doranda, Ranchi) and respondent no.5 (Jharkhand State Information Commission, At Engineering Hostel No.2, H.E.C. Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi) to supply the information, which has been denied on the basis of third party information.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is dispute between wife and husband for which certain information was required by the petitioner, which has not been furnished.
Learned counsel for the respondent- State, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III and learned counsel for the respondent-JSIC, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall has submitted that under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 such third party information cannot be supplied, as such, writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and provision of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, this Court is not inclined to grant mandamus.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether third party information can be supplied under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Whether a writ petition directing supply of third party information should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shrawan Kumar
State of Jharkhand
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
