IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 18 of 2011 Om Prakash ….…… Appellant Versus Uttarakhand Information Commission and another ……….Respondents Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent No. 1. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. Date of Judgment: 20.07.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 1057 of 2011 Considering the averments made in the application for condonation delay in preferring the appeal and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Special Appeal No. 18 of 2011 Respondent No. 2, who has been noticed, has not responded to the notice. 2. Respondent No. 2 approached the Departmental Information Officer, namely, Information Officer, Personnel Department, Government of Uttarakhand, seeking a number of informations pertaining to the appellant. Those were not furnished. He, accordingly, preferred an appeal before the departmental appellate authority. His appeal was not entertained. Respondent No. 2, accordingly, approached the Uttarakhand Information Commission. By an order dated 24th September, 2010, Uttarakhand Information Commission has directed furnishing of two of the informations sought for, namely, the details of movable and immovable properties and the option exercised by the appellant. While giving such direction, Commission made the appellant a deemed Information Officer and directed him to furnish 2 those informations. Being aggrieved thereby, appellant filed a writ petition. By the order under appeal, writ petition has been dismissed, holding that the informations were available with the employer of the appellant and, accordingly, there was no just reason not to furnish the same to the information seeker. 3. In the appeal, appellant is contending, by referring to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, that both the informations, directed to be furnished, are personal informations and, accordingly, those could not be directed to be disclosed. According to us, Section 8(1)(j) applies to such informations which are so personal in nature that the same have no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. Therefore, in order to be personal information, in terms of Section 8(1)(j), the information must not have any relationship to any public activity or interest or that the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. In as much as, by law, it is a requirement on the part of the appellant to furnish informations pertaining to his assets to his employer and, in as much as in order to become an employee of the State of Uttarakhand, appellant was required to give an option, it cannot be said that the informations, thus furnished, would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the appellant. The list of assets, to be furnished, are to be owned by the appellant and he would own the same by means of his earnings as a public servant. At the same time, to serve in the State of Uttarakhand, appellant was required to opt for the State of Uttarakhand and such option has direct bearing with public activity or interest. 4. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the informations directed to be given are such personal informations which could not be directed to be disclosed without holding out that disclosure thereof is in the larger public interest. We, accordingly, find no justification in interference with the direction for disclosure of those informations. 3 5. However, the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not authorize disclosure of information by the person in respect of whom the information is sought for. Accordingly, the direction upon the appellant to disclose the informations in question was unjust. The direction to disclose informations, as it appears to us, should have been given to the Information Officer, who refused to give the same to respondent No. 2. 6. We, accordingly, modify the order under appeal and the order challenged in the writ petition and thereby, direct the Information Officer, Personnel Department, Government of Uttarakhand to disclose those informations to respondent No. 2. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 20.07.2011 20.07.2011 Amit