Uttarakhand High Court
A.S.Sirari vs State Information Commission And ... on 4 July, 2017
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2214 of 2016
Dr. A.S. Sirari .........Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission & another ........Respondents
Present:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Respondent no. 2 sought certain information from the petitioner who is the Public Information Officer as well as the Principal of the Degree College under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (from hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The information sought by respondent no. 2 are as follow:-
"In public interest, kindly furnish the following information with regard to medical reimbursement from 01.01.2011 till date:-
(1) Year wise name of the beneficiaries in the aforesaid period and the amount made available to them.
(2) Copies of the essentiality certificates year wise of all the aforesaid.
(3) Copies of the prescription of the aforesaid by the doctors of Government Hospital (year wise).
(4) Rate of various tests, such as, pathology, X-
Ray, Ultrasound, etc., as mentioned in the Government Order, on which rate payment has been made by you to the said beneficiaries.
(5) Whether all the aforesaid have been paid on the said rates or whether bill has been stopped in this regard?
(6) Whether the document regarding any disease, medicine, treatment of any employee/officer can be furnished to a third party without permission of the said employee/officer?"
2. The information sought by respondent no. 2 was denied to him. Aggrieved, he preferred a first appeal before the first appellate authority, who dismissed the first appeal vide order dated 01.08.2015 stating that the information sought by respondent no. 2 with regard to medical reimbursement cannot be furnished as they are exempted 2 under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act being personal information. Aggrieved the applicant/respondent no. 2 preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commissioner. During the pendency of the second appeal, the information as sought by respondent no. 2 was supplied by the petitioner. Consequently, an order dated 12.07.2016 was passed by the State Information Commissioner imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) on the petitioner on ground that there has been a delay in supplying the information.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the information sought by respondent no. 2 do not fall within the definition of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act. Section 2 (f) of the Act reads as under:-
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)....
(b)....
(c)....
(d)....
(e)....
(f) "information" means 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;"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that certain information are exempted from disclosure which would be under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:-
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(a)....
(b)....
(c)....
(d)....
(e)....
(f)....
(g)....
(h)....
(i)....3
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not 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:
Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the information sought by respondent no. 2 was in fact personal and private information regarding the medical health of the employees of the Degree College, which he was not liable to supply. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & others (decided on 19.12.2014 in WP (c) No. 1842 of 2012) passed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, which has been upheld in special appeal by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP, and would argue that in the said case the information regarding the medical expenditure and bills of Judges of the High Court was denied to be supplied to the applicant as that does not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act.
6. All the same, the State Information Commissioner actually directed that information nos. 1 and 4 be provided to respondent no. 2, which are as follows:-
"(1) Year wise name of the beneficiaries in the aforesaid period and the amount made available to them.
(4) Rate of various tests, such as, pathology, X-
Ray, Ultrasound, etc., as mentioned in the Government Order, on which rate payment has been made by you to the said beneficiaries."
7. These information are only relating to the expenses incurred on medical expenses and no medical history or ailment or 4 detail thereof was liable to be furnished by the petitioner. All which was needed were the expenses incurred on pathology report, X-Ray, etc. Moreover, as per the Act even such information can be supplied if it is in public interest.
8. As of now, in any case, the information has already been given by the petitioner to the satisfaction of respondent no. 2. However, since the information has been supplied belatedly a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) has been imposed upon the petitioner by the State Information Commissioner.
9. Considering the nature of the case and the fact that the petitioner is a Principal of a Degree College, it would serve the ends of justice, if instead of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) within four weeks.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed.
11. It is, however, made clear that a lapse on the part of the petitioner in giving information should not be read adversely in his service records. There was no oblique motive or mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner, and hence, it is made clear that the amount which is to be given by the petitioner shall not be prejudical to his interests in service.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 04.07.2017 Ankit/