1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4221/2009 Girish R. Deshpande -: versus :- Central Information Commissioner and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. Heard Shri A.P.Wachasunder, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri R.S. Sundram, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Following documents sought for by the petitioner have been denied to him by respondent nos. 1 and 2 : (1) Copies of all memos, show cause notices, censure issued to Mr. Lute or awarded any punishment from the date of promotion as enforcement officer. (2) Copy of return of assets and liabilities submitted by Mr. Anant Baliram Lute at the time of his appointment in the Employees Provident Fund Organization under rule 18 of the CCS [Conduct] Rules, 1964 or as per rules applicable to EPF Staff. (3) Details of investments, lending and borrowing from / in Banks, LIC, Shares or otherwise as required under the CCS [Conduct] Rules, 1964 or rules 2 applicable to EPF staff. (4) Copy of report of items wise and value wise details of the gifts accepted by Mr. Lute and his family from his friends and relatives in the marriage of son of Mr. Lute, performed in last year, which is mandatory as per Rule 13 of the CCS [Conduct] Rules, 1964 or the rules applicable to the EPF Staff. (5) Copy of details of property either movable or immovable submitted by Mr. Lute to the office regarding its purchase, lease, mortgage, sale, gift or otherwise acquired either in the name of Mr. Anant Baliram Lute or in the name of any member of his family during the service, as required under Rule 18 of the CCS [Conduct] Rules, 1964 or the rules applicable to the EPF Staff. (Movable property as defined in Explanation 1 to Rule 18 of the CCS [Conduct] Rules, 1964 or the rules applicable to the EPF Staff ). The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2007 [4] Mh.L.J. 573 (Swaroopsingh Naik .vrs. State of Maharashtra), in paragraph no.15 considers the import of the proviso added after Section 8[1][j] of Right to Information Act and held that the said document can be made available. He has also invited attention to the judgment delivered by the Central Information Commission on 24.06.2009 in the case of S.K. Mishra .vrs. Department of Personnel and Training. Shri Sundram, learned counsel for respondents states that the petitioner is having enimical relations with 3 respondent no.3 and therefore only to harass him the documents of personal nature are sought for. He relies on the discussion in the impugned order dated 18.06.2009 by the CIC for said purpose. The statement showing particulars of documents annexed with the petition to which Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel has invited attention shows that the remaining documents have been supplied to the petitioner by respondents. Learned counsel states that the documents demanded must also be supplied because those documents cannot be withheld from either Parliament or State Legislature. Perusal of paragraph no.15 for judgment of this Court itself shows that the Division Bench has found that generally such information normally cannot be denied to Parliament and State unless the person who opposes the releases of the information makes out a case that such information is not available to Parliament or State. Facts disclosed in para nos. 2, 3 and 10 of reported judgment clearly shows that an influential person spent most of his jail sentence in hospital, Division Bench has also held that right to privacy is part of right to life. Invasion of privacy appears to be permitted when it is in larger public interest by Sections 8 and 11 of the Right to Information Act. In view of these observations I have perused the petition to find out the nature of allegations. There are no allegations of any corruption practice or other similar activities to say that such disclosure will be in public interest. Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel however has urged that no such allegations are statutorily required. Looking to the nature of documents, 4 it is apparent that the documents are of personal nature and therefore, have been rightly denied to the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error. In present facts, finding of CIC on larger public interest is not demonstrated to be perverse. I therefore, find that no case is made out by the petitioner warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.