HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. T.K.JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 14/5/2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.2-State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in Appeal Case No.1589/2011, whereby, the second appeal preferred by Respondent No.1-T. K. Jha under Sec. 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005') has been allowed while directing the petitioners to supply the informations as sought by him with regard to Annual Confidential Reports of three Judicial Officers.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 19/8/2009, the Respondent No.1-T.K. Jha has moved an application (Annexure P/2) under Sec. 6(1) of the Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, seeking Annual Confidential Reports of as many as three Judicial Officers, namely Shri G. Minahjuddin, Shri Sandeep Buxy and Shri Surendra Tiwari. The said application was rejected by the Assistant Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur vide its order dtd. 19/8/2009 (Annexure P-3) holding that the alleged informations, regarding the Annual Confidential Reports of the Judicial Officers, are confidential in nature and disclosure of it would not serve any public purpose and, with these observations, the said application made under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act, 2005 was rejected.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the refusal of the aforesaid application, the Respondent No.1 questioned the same before the First Appellate Authority i.e. the Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, by submitting inter alia that the alleged informations are not exempted under Sec. 8 of the Act, 2005, therefore, the order as passed by the Public Information Officer rejecting his application deserves to be set aside. It appears that the said appeal was not decided in time, therefore, the second appeal was preferred by the said Respondent before the Commission under Sec. 19 (3) of the Act, 2005, who in turn, vide its order impugned dtd. 14/5/2012 has allowed the same on finding that the alleged informations are not exempted from the provisions prescribed under clauses (e) and (j) of Sec. 8(1) of the Act, 2005 and, accordingly directed the petitioners to supply the alleged informations to the said respondent. This is the order, which has been impugned by way of this petition.