ROHIT SABHARWAL Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, fetching griievance from the order dateed 2/12/2020 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Punjab State Informatioon Commissionn (respondent No.1), wherethrough, his appeal was rejected, on the ground,, that the information sought by the petitioner, is hit by thhe provisions of Sec. 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 20005 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2005'), has filed the instant wrrit petition, casst under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitiioner, while drawing attention of this Court towards the contents of the appllication, submits that none of thhe information sought by the petitioner would invade the privacy of any officeer. He submits that the only information, which has been sought from the SPIIO concerned, is to the effect, to disclose the naames and number of officers, who information was sought about the propertty of any officer. Therefore, thhe learned Infoormation Commission, Punjab, without appreciating these factts, has mechannically invoked the provisions of Sec. 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005, and dismissed the appeal, preferred by the petitioner. Finally, he places reliance upoon the proviso attached under Seection 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005, to submit thhat the information, which cannoot be denied to Parliament or State Legislation, shall not be denied to any persoon.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment (Annexure P-7), passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Girish Ramchandra Deshpandde versus Central Information Commissioner and others' to submit that thhis issue has already been adjudicated, wherethrough, it has categorically explained thhe expression "personal informmation" and that the information, which has been sought, is primarily between the employer and the employeee, and normally these aspects are governed by the service rules, which fallls under the expression "personal information" and disclosure of thhis information has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, annd this is an endeavour to invade the privacy off that individual.