1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. W.P.NO.3742/2008 Principal R.L.T. Science College and anr. ...vs.. Prakash Agrawal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 25th JUNE, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.C.A.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.O.Y.Kashid, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent had moved an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act for supply of an information regarding the employees working with the petitioner. The petitioner had made a reference to the employees in regard to whom the information was sought by the respondent. The employees objected to such information being supplied to the respondent. As a result of it, the application for 2 supply of information was rejected. 3. An appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority confirmed the order of the Information Officer. A second appeal was preferred before the State Information Commission and the State Information Commission directed to supply all the documents which were demanded by the respondent. The State Information Commission also directed the said documents to be supplied free of costs. This is the order which is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the respondent wants to make misuse of the documents, in as much as respondent is retired employee there is no need to him to have an information of the employees working. He further submits that respondent is seeking the information with an ulterior motive. We need not enter into that question. Looking to the nature of the information sought for, I find that as far as copies of Service books, Office notes, 3 recommendations of the Principal/Superintendence etc. regarding promotion could not and cannot be supplied to the respondent at all. They being personal documents and recommendations of the Principal/Superintendence being confidential documents, I find that the order passed by the State Information Commission directing to supply the documents regarding Service books, Office notes, Recommendations of the Principal/ Superintendent regarding promotion in any way was illegal. I do not find that the State Information Commission has erred in directing to supply rest of the documents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason in fact for the State Commission to direct the copies to be supplied free of costs. He submits that record that is being sought by the respondent is very bulky. Considering the fact that the respondent is a retired employee and he does not give reason for need of these documents, it will not be proper to supply him the copies free of costs. In the circumstances 4 the petitioner may supply the copies of the documents subject to payment of the costs incurred for supply of such documents. The documents as mentioned above only need to be supplied. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE. chute