JAIVEER SINGH Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dtd. 20/3/2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana - respondent No. 1, whereby, second appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 - Anil Kumar challenging the orders passed by the State Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Engineer, OP Division, Haryana - respondent No. 3 dtd. 12/9/2017 (Annexure P-2) and the order dtd. 27/10/2017 (Annexure P3) by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Superintending Engineer, OP Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Limited, Bhiwani - respondent No. 2; whereby, information sought by respondent No. 4 regarding traveling allowance and daily allowance as claimed by the petitioner from 1/1/2013 to 31/10/2016, was declined on the ground that the same falls within the definition of personal information and there is no public interest involved in the same have been set aside and the information as sought by respondent No. 4 has been ordered to be supplied.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Information Commission, Haryana - respondent No. 1 has not taken into consideration the fact that traveling allowance and daily allowance, as claimed by the petitioner, relates to his personal accounts and he being a public servant, should not be exposed by supplying the information relatable to him, which is purely personal to him. He contends that apart from that, the Competent Authority has found that not only the information sought was relatable to the personal information of the petitioner but there was also no public interest involved in the same and therefore, had rightly rejected the application dtd. 30/8/2017 (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent No. 4 seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act'). Assertion has also been made that the information as has been sought for by respondent No. 4 is due to personal vendetta and grudge because the brother of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were competitors as they were providing vehicles on hire to the Department for official travel and on the complaint by the firm of the brother of the petitioner, vehicles of respondent No. 4 were not engaged for the purpose of hire. He, thus, contends that the application under the RTI Act having not been filed with a bona fide intention, the same is liable to be rejected on this ground alone and the authorities had taken into consideration the said fact and returned a finding to that effect in the order dtd. 4/7/2017 (Annexure P-6). He, thus, contends that the impugned order dtd. 20/3/2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that there is no personal information, which respondent No. 4 had sought as the information sought by respondent No. 4 is only for traveling allowance and daily allowance, which obviously is paid to an employee for performing public functions. The payment is made from the Government funds and therefore, it cannot be said that the information is personal information. He further submits that the allegations against respondent No. 4 are without any basis, however, he contends that the intent and purpose for which the information has been sought under the RTI Act has no relevance with regard to supply or non-supply of the information under the RTI Act as there are specific exceptions provided for under Sec. 8 of the RTI Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause v. High Court of Allahabad and another 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 579. He, thus, contends that the order dtd. 20/3/2018 (Annexure P-5) as passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, being in accordance with law, does not call for any interference.