NAVNEET LADKE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to disclose the information as required by the petitioner in Annexure P/1. It is also prayed that the order dated 25/04/2013 (Annexure P/2), order dated 29/07/2013 (Annexure P/3) and the order dated 12/11/2014 (Annexure P/4) be set aside and the respondent no.4 be directed to disclose the information under the Right to Information Act.

(2.) The facts, in narrow compass, are that the petitioner claims that he is a law abiding citizen and also actively participates in social activities. It is stated that he has come to know that the respondent no. 5 who is holding the post of Joint Director in the Department of Public Relations had given the advertisement of more than 15 crores to the newspapers and magazines which was not existed and registered.

(3.) He also submitted that according to his information the appointment of respondent no.5 on the said post is illegal and it is a backdoor entry as procedure for appointment has not been followed. He further submits that the promotion and other benefits were also wrongly given to the respondent no.5. In this background, he filed an application under Order 6 (Rule 1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter shall be referred as the 'Act'). The information desired by the petitioner have been mentioned from clause 6.1 to 6.10 of the application (Annexure P/1). The Public Relation Officer rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 29/07/2013 (Annexure P/3) stating that the information sought by the petitioner relates to personal information of the respondent no.5 and the same has no relationship to any public activity or interest and, therefore, the same was denied to be supplied to the petitioner.