Gujarat High Court
Pankesh Manubhai Patel vs Chief Information Commissioner on 14 November, 2014
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/16480/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16480 of 2014
================================================================
PANKESH MANUBHAI PATEL .....Petitioner
Versus
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AND OTHERS .......Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. S.P. MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 14/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Amendment is granted. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Central Information Comission, New Delhi dated 11.09.2014 and the orders which were the subject before it.
2. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the information as sought by the petitioner was the 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and denial thereof by the respondent- bank on the ground that it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, is illegal and therefore this Court may interfere.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, refusal of such information is, in substance, negating the Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/16480/2014 ORDER empowering tool which is given to the citizen of the country by the Act and it would be counter productive. Reliance is also placed on the order of the Central Information Commission in different matters where such information were directed to be given to other persons.
4. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, firstly the information asked for by the petitioner is about the service benefits granted to the officers of the respondent- bank. The petitioner is also an employee of the respondent- bank itself. The information asked for by the petitioner is in 14 different columns as under.
"Kindly provide under mentioned information from January 2008 to April 2013, clumn wise under excel sheet and also provide set of xerox copies of all the documents mentioned below from Sr.No.1 to 14 of all staff members who have availed LTC for going abroad AND/ or for local IF ANY who has availed facility at par of Air under economy class etc. in GENERAL and ALSO TO PROVIDE INFORMATION of all chief Manager's Agm's DGM's and Zonal head of North Gujarat Zone, AVAILING LTC for going Abroad under applicable class etc. including of Mr. S.K. Das in specific, according to my knowledge he has accord sanctioned while he was the Zonal Head of Gujarat Operation along with the name of the sanctioning authority who Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/16480/2014 ORDER has sanctioned the bill of Mr. S.K. Das."
(sic)"
5. The Commission has recorded reasons in para-4, which reads as under.
"4. We agree with the Respondents that collecting this information would disproportionately divert their resources from the day to day work. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest, which would warrant a directive to the Respondents to collect the information, sought by him, even at the cost of diverting their resources from their day to day work. In the above context, we also note the following observations of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors."
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/16480/2014 ORDER its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
6. Having considered the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent authorities and the information asked for by the petitioner, this Court finds that, the view taken by the Commission in the facts of this case does not call for any interference. Further, the Commission has noted the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, which would apply with full force in the facts of this case. This Court does not see any infirmity in the impugned decision of the Commission. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed.
7. It is noted that, during the course of hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 290 of 2013, which is disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.11.2014. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that, the proceedings as referred in the said order, is not this proceedings, and the same shall be/ is being filed separately.
Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/16480/2014 ORDER8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) salim/7 Page 5 of 5