TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal, but the information was not supplied to him as well by the First Appellate Authority (for brevity "the FAA"). 2. Aggrieved by the action of the SPIO and the FAA, respondent No. 5 filed the second appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Haryana (for brevity "the SIC"). During the course of hearing of the second appeal, the SIC passed the impugned order dated 21-7-2010 (Annexure P-4). The operative part of which is, as under :- "In the hearing today, the appellant and the respondents were present and heard. The appellant submitted that requisite information has not been provided to him by the respondents so far. The respondents submitted that the informations sought by the appellant cannot be furnished since it is covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the plea that it is invasion on the privacy of individual. The learned Judges of Supreme Court are furnishing details of their movable; immovable assets, so are the Legislators before fling their nomination papers. The Commissioner had ordered official of M.C.F., Faridabad to furnish details of their movable, immovable assets. Likewise, an order has been issued in respect of officials of Haryana Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is hereby directed to obtain the details of movable, immovable assets of Sh. D.P. Jangra, his wife and family members and furnish the same to the appellant within 25 days of issue of order with copy to the appellant and the Commission in term of appellant's application dated 18-1-2010. The case will be closed only after receipt of the above information." 4. Neither the FAA, nor the SPIO-respondents, assailed the impugned orders, but the petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P-4 and P-14), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record and the relevant legal provisions with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the information with regard to movable and immovable properties and expenditure, etc. is a personal information of the petitioner, which cannot be supplied and is exempted under Section 8(e)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... xx xx xx xx (j) 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. 12. The word "Information" has been defined under Section 2(f) of the Act to mean any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force and word "Record" includes - (i) any document, manuscript and file; (ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (iv) any other material produced by a computer or any o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, are (legally) duty bound to supply such information to respondent No. 5 in this relevant behalf. 17. Again, the next submission of the learned counsel that as the petitioner was a third-party', therefore, the impugned orders cannot be passed, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, is neither tenable, nor the observations of Gujarat High Court in case of Reliance Industries Limited v. Gujarat State Information Commission and Others, AIR 2007 Gujarat 203, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, Rasiklal Mardia filed as many as 55 applications, for getting the following information about the petitioner and its group of companies :- "2.2 Informations demanded by the original applicant i.e. Rasiklal Mardia (in Special Civil Application No. 16073 of 2007), are as under :- "(1) You have recommended for sales tax exemption as per Government Policy for Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. and your department has confirmed that they have complied with terms and conditions of the Govt. as to local employment, etc. Please provide complete copy, verification report done to the labourers working there with proof whatever is avail....