OM PRAKASH Vs. UTTARAKHAND INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY Condonation Application No. 1057 of 2011 Considering the averments made in the application for condonation delay in preferring the appeal and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Special Appeal No. 18 of 2011 Respondent No. 2, who has been noticed, has not responded to the notice.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 approached the Departmental Information Officer, namely, Information Officer, Personnel Department, Government of Uttarakhand, seeking a number of informations pertaining to the appellant. Those were not furnished. He, accordingly, preferred an appeal before the departmental appellate authority. His appeal was not entertained. RESPONDENT No. 2, accordingly, approached the Uttarakhand Information Commission. By an order dated 24th September, 2010, Uttarakhand Information Commission has directed furnishing of two of the informations sought for, namely, the details of movable and immovable properties and the option exercised by the appellant. While giving such direction, Commission made the appellant a deemed Information Officer and directed him to furnish those informations. Being aggrieved thereby, appellant filed a writ petition. By the order under appeal, writ petition has been dismissed, holding that the informations were available with the employer of the appellant and, accordingly, there was no just reason not to furnish the same to the information seeker.

(3.) HOWEVER, the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not authorize disclosure of information by the person in respect of whom the information is sought for. Accordingly, the direction upon the appellant to disclose the informations in question was unjust. The direction to disclose informations, as it appears to us, should have been given to the Information Officer, who refused to give the same to respondent No. 2.