DEEPAK PANDHARINATH VAINGANKAR Vs. SURYAKANT BABU NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the respondent No.4 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (the Act for short hereinafter).

(2.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties and the respondent No.1 in person. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 waives service.

(3.) Shri. Ganesh Naik, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 was challenged by the petitioner in the present petition, being a nullity in law, and seeking it to be quashed and set aside. It was his contention that an application was moved by the respondent No.1 under Section 6(1) of the Act, seeking the personal particulars of the petitioner, vis-a-vis his date of appointment, working hours, educational qualifications, details of higher education, so on and so forth in that connection. The petitioner had filed a reply to the respondent No.2 whereby he had raised serious objection to the furnishing of this information to the respondent No.1, and otherwise spelt out that the application was motivated at the instance of the respondent No.1 only to harass him and to settle personal scores. The Public Information Officer had passed the order on 11.10.2017 whereby he had declined the information as claimed by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 had preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority, i.e. the respondent No.3, had by its Order dated 04.01.2018 dismissed his appeal after considering the citations relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, and considering his case. The respondent No.1 did not rest easy thereafter but had instead preferred a second appeal before the respondent No.4 who had passed the order which was assailed in the present petition. He adverted to the provisions of Sections 6, 8, 11 and 19 of the said Act, placed reliance in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Versus Central Information Commissioner and Others, 2013 1 SCC 212; Canara Bank Versus C.S. Shyam and Another, 2018 11 SCC 426]; and Kashinath J. Shetye Versus Public Information Officer and 3 Others, [Writ Petition No. 1 of 2009], to substantiate his contention. It was his further contention that no public interest was disclosed by the respondent No.1 in pursuing the application under the Act, and therefore this was a fit case to quash the order under challenge.