V MADHAV Vs. TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 2.2.2010 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The facts leading to the present writ appeal are as follows. The appellant made an application dated 12.2.2009 to the Public Information Officer, Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu seeking permission to inspect the five latest statement of assets disclosure submitted by the ten I.A.S. Officers including the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and the nine Secretaries of the Departments of Finance, Industries, Health and Family Welfare, Agriculture, Public Works Department, Housing and Urban Development, Home, Prohibition and Excise, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj and Revenue. That application was rejected by the Public Information Officer in his letter dated 16.3.2009 on the ground that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the appellant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the same was also rejected on 22.4.2009 with the same reason. Thereafter, the appellant filed a further appeal to the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission held that Section 8(1)(j) is not applicable for the assets details of Government servants. Nevertheless, it found that the information presented in a sealed cover constitutes information that is "held" by the public authority to ensure confidentiality and the assets details of public servants are personal information and since there was no public interest cause established, the information need not be disclosed. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in the writ petition giving rise to the present writ appeal.

(2.) We have heard Dr.V.Krishna Ananth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Vivek Sriram, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent.

(3.) Before we consider the issue raised in this writ appeal, we may refer to our own judgment in The Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. R.Karthikeyan and others, 2011 3 CTC 241, where we have narrated the history and object of the legislation, namely, the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the judgments of the Supreme Court. The relevant paragraphs 7 to 14 of the said judgment read thus: