Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Sgadadhar Panigrahi

Orissa HC26 Aug 2019WP(C)/15639/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State challenging an Information Commission order that dismissed a PI Officer's rejection of an employee's RTI application. The Court distinguished a S.C. precedent regarding exam scripts, holding that an employee seeking his own service records with adverse remarks for self-correction does not fall under Section 8(1)(j) personal information re

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it had no merit; the respondent/employee was directed to supply the sought information within fifteen days.

State of Orissa Vs Sgadadhar Panigrahi — Intellectual Property | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C). No.15639 of 2006

¶2

6 26.08.2019 Heard Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-petitioner, Sri B.K.Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Sri S.Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.

¶3

This writ petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority involving Right to Information Act, 2005. Short background involving the case is that the opposite party no.1 being an employee sought for his personal service information by way of prescribed application under Annexure-1. The application having been considered by the statutory authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Public Information Officer rejected the same. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority i.e. Orissa Information Commission, Bhubaneswar. Appeal being heard was decided on contest holding that the challenge of the State’s claim does not get the protection of Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence the writ petition.

¶4

Challenging the impugned order at Annexure-4 passed by the appellate Authority, Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-petitioner taking this Court to the grounds raised therein and Ground Nos. A to K in the writ petition submitted that for the grounds raised therein further for the provision at Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, there has been restriction for providing information as sought for by the petitioner. Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel further taking this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vrs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors , 2011 (II) OLR (SC)-746, submitted that for the provision indicated herein as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appellate order runs contrary not only to the provision of the Act but also

¶5

¶6

remain contrary to the decision referred to hereinabove. It is in this premises, Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel sought for interference of this Court in the order at Annexure-4 and set aside the same.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party on the other hand taking this Court to the provision at Section 8 (1) (j) and going through the same, submitted that the restriction contained under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not applicable to the case at hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring this Court to interfere in the same. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor on the other hand supporting the stand of the State supported the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the writ petition.

¶8

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the petitioner vide Annexure-1 has applied the following information:

¶9

“4. (c) Specific details information required:- Copy of the Substantial reports furnished by:

¶10

i) Reporting Officer

¶11

ii) Counter Signing officer

¶12

iii) Accepting officer, on the basis of which the representation/ memorials submitted by the appellant to expunge the adverse remarks were considered and subsequently rejected. The adverse remarks were allowed to be continue/be supplied to file the same before the Honourable SAT (C) bench in O.A.No.2892 (C)/98 for kind information of the Honourable Tribunal.”

¶13

Considering this request of the petitioner, the Public Information Officer rejected the application of the petitioner thereby denying for providing information sought for by the

¶14

¶15

¶16

petitioner being prevented under the provision at Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On being appealed, the appeal was allowed on reversing the order passed by the Public Information Officer. Looking to the provision at Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, this Court finds the provision reads as follows:

¶17

“8(1) (j):

¶18

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:

¶19

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

¶20

Reading the provision and taking into account information sought for by the petitioner, this Court finds the information sought for by the petitioner relates to his personal service inasmuch as observations in the maintenance of his own C.C.R. For the request for expunction of the adverse remark involving the C.C.R. having been turned down, this Court finds the petitioner has a greater interest for at least improving his C.C.R. which, for this Court, is not possible unless the petitioner is made aware of his lapses or faults. Further for the involvement of seeking information of his own service, such restriction does not come under the restrictions vide Section 8(1) (j) of the Act, 2005. Moreover, there is no supply of information to a third party rather this a communication involving the petitioner therein.

¶21

¶22

For the nature of restriction in Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, this Court finds for the involvement of the information at the instance of the petitioner does not come within the restriction vide Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. At this stage, going through the decision cited by Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel rendered in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr (supra), this Court finds the case involved therein is involving evaluated answer script involving educational institution. Reading from the decision, this Court finds the Byelaw involving Central Board of Secondary Education Examination had a specific restriction for supply of such information at the relevant point of time which is not available in the case of petitioner. It is on the other hand, law is fairly settled that uncommunicated C.C.Rs can stand as a bar of use involving an employee. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned State Counsel is clearly distinguishable.

¶23

It is in the circumstance and for the observation made hereinabove, this Court finds there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring to interfere in the same.

¶24

The writ petition thus stands dismissed for having no merit. As a consequence, information sought for by the petitioner if not provided in the meantime, be supplied to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of fifteen days hence.

¶25

A free copy of this order be handed over to Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for communication and compliance.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application

¶27

Biswanath Rath,J.

¶28

¶29

sks

State of Orissa v. Sgadadhar Panigrahi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Sgadadhar Panigrahi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navnit Shah Vs Jr.Motor Vehicle

Premanath Pradhan Vs State

Premananda Pradhan Vs 1ST M.a.C.T.,Puri

Smt.Sumedha Dansana Vs Brundaban Dansana

Banamali Khatua Vs State

E.E.,Wesco. Vs Grievance Redressal