TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11(1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. - W.P.(C) 6756/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2011 - MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI J. Represented By: Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Advocate. For Petitioner Ms. Geeta Sharma, Ms. Mithu Jain Ms. Manisha Dhir, Advocates. For Respondents JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner assails the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected by the CIC by holding that the view of the Commission has been that ACR grades should be disclosed only to the person to whom they relate, except in exceptional circumstances. It was also held that examination of the file comments made by the reporting and the reviewing officer in the ACRs stand on the same footing as the ACR itself. On this ground it was held that the said information cannot be disclosed to a third party. It was further observed that disclosure of such file, even to the public servant to whom the ACRs may relate, is itself open to debate. 5. The submission of the petitioner before this Court is that seeking information about the follow up action in a separate fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original record in terms of the order dated 23.03.2011 before me and I have perused the same. 8. Upon a perusal of the file produced by the respondent, to me it appears that the said follow up action file cannot be said not to be connected with, or related to the Annual Confidential Report file of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram. The said file contains correspondence in relation to the remark recorded by the President of the CESTAT in relation to Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, and also contains the reasons why the said remarks have eventually been dropped. The recordings made in the said file constitute an integral part of the ACR record of the officer in question, viz. Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram. I, therefore, reject the petitioner s submission that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case may be, to such third party‟ and after hearing such third party, a decision will be taken by the CIC or the CPIOs or the State Commission whether or not to order disclosure of such information. The third party may plead a privacy defence. But such defence may, for good reasons, be overruled. In other words, after following the procedure outlined in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, the CIC may still decide that information should be disclosed in public interest overruling any objection that the third party may have to the disclosure of such information. 24. Given the above procedure, it is not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the word or occurring in Section 11 (1) in the phrase information which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lms about such disclosure. And there may be a third category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The importance of the post held may also be a factor that might weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after hearing all interested parties. Therefore the procedure under Section 11(1) RTI Act. 26. This Court, therefore, holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the UOI on the basis of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and directing the UOI and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents as sought by Mr. Kejriwal. Whatever may have been the past practice when disclosure wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces Studies (supra). 12. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not examined the issue whether larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner in this case. This issue should have been examined by the CIC. 13. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|