IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14486 of 2009 1. SAIYED HUSSAIN ABBAS RIZWI S/O LATE MD. SAIYED MOHAMAD RIZWI R/O NAWAB KOTHI, (SOUTH OF RAMNA ROAD), NAYATOLA, P.S- KADAMKUAN, DISTT- PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION THROUGH THE REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) 4TH FLOOR, INFORMATION BUILDING, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER 4TH FLOOR INFORMATION BUILDING, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha. With Pallavi Thakur. For the Respondent No.1 : Mrs. Binita Singh For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh. ----------- 02 27.11.2009 The petitioner had sought information under the Right To Information Act, from the Bihar Public Service Commission in relation to examination conducted for appointment of State Examiner of Questioned Documents in Police Laboratory in C.I.D, Government of Bihar, Patna. Petitioner in particular wanted the marks obtained by the applicants for the said examination, the name and address of officials, who were in the interview panel, who interviewed. On application being made, the Public Information Officer of the Bihar Public Service Commission conveyed that so far as marks and merit list are concerned, they are being supplied but so far as name and - 2 - addresses of the interview panel is concerned, they were refused to be supplied in terms of Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Information Commission. Notices were issued but after hearing the parties the State Information Officer of the State Information Commission rejected the appeal stating that all information that could be given has been given. Petitioner is aggrieved by non- disclosure of name and addresses of interview panelist. He asserts that in some other interviews, department had furnished the name and addresses. Thus, the question for consideration is, whether personal details of persons can be disclosed or not. The second question that has been raised is whether the State Information Commissioner had the jurisdiction to pass an order which could be said to be an order of the State Information Commission in appeal. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of - 3 - at the stage of admission itself. “Information” is defined in Section 2(f), which is quoted hereunder:- “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; It is to be considered whether disclosure of names and particulars of interview panelist could be withheld. First one must keep in mind that the function of the Public Service Commission is not like an executive awarding a contract or taking a policy decision. It is about a process of selection. While maintaining transparency, secrecy is equally important, as selection is on basis of marks that is awarded in view of members at the interview. If information with regard to them is disclosed, the secrecy and the authenticity of the process itself may be jeopardized apart from that information would be an unwarranted invasion into privacy of the - 4 - individual. Restricting giving this information has a larger public purpose behind it. It is to maintain purity of the process of selection. Thus, in view of specific provision in Section 8(1) (j), in my view, the information could not be demanded as matter of right. The designated authority in that organization also did not consider it right to divulge the information in larger public interest, as provided in the said provision. This Court is not sitting in appeal over that decision. Even though, this would have disposed of the writ petition, as the second question has been raised and argued at length about the power and function of the State Information Commission, I deem it proper to decide the same as well. The State Information Commission, who decided the matter and dismissed the appeal, is not the Commission, it is submitted. In my view, this argument is also misconceived. State Information Commission is defined in Section 2(k), which is quoted hereunder:- “State Information Commission” means the State Information Commission constituted under sub-section(1) of - 5 - section15; It only refers to Section 15(1), whereunder the Commission is constituted thereunder. Section 15(1) provides that the government shall notify a body known as the State Information Commission under the Act. Sub-Section (2) provides that the State Information Commission shall consist of the State Chief Information Commissioner and such number of State Information Commissioners not exceeding 10. It is on this basis, it is submitted that once the constitution of the Commission is specified by Sub-section (2) of Section 15 all decisions of the State Information Commission has to be taken by the whole body and not by any individual constituting that body. On this premise, it is submitted that the order being passed by one State Information Commissioner alone is not the order of the State Information Commission and thus the appeal has been incompetently disposed of by quorum non judice. I am afraid that learned counsel fails to take note of Section 15(4), which is quoted hereunder:- “The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of - 6 - the State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the State Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the State Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.” A plain reading of the provision of Section 15(4) shows that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission vests in the State Chief Information Commissioner. Thus, the power to manage the affairs of the Commission is entrusted to the State Chief Information Commissioner. Affairs of the State Information Commission would include the very object for which the Commission has been created, that is, to entertain appeals and decide the same. Thus, how the affairs of the Commission would be managed is as per the discretion of the State Chief Information Commissioner. To clear any ambiguity as to the status of the other State Information Commissioners, who are members of the - 7 - Commission as well, it is stipulated that they shall assist the Chief Information Commissioner. The Section further provides that they, the State Information Commissioner shall have all such powers and would be competent to do all such things which could be done by the State Information Commission. Thus, it is clear that the Commission is constituted of the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners. It does not necessarily follow that in all its functions all members of the Commission must jointly participate. That is left to the State Chief Information Commissioner, to decide. Here, it may be pertinent to notice that in view of the provisions of Section 15 (4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the State Chief Information Commissioner has made regulations known as the Bihar State Information Commission (Management) Regulation, 2007, in which elaborate provisions has been made with regard to how appeal would be filed listed, who would deal with them and how they will be dealt with. It - 8 - permits State Information Commissioner to sit singly. Nothing has been shown that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was heard and decided in contravention of these regulations. Petitioner submits that the detail tabulation of marks have not been made available to the petitioner. There appears to be some controversy whether they were made available or not. If the tabulated marks have not been made available then the Bihar Public Service Commission would be under obligation to give the tabulated marks sheet of the candidates, who appeared in the examination, without disclosing the name of either the invigilator or the interview panelist. Thus, I find no merit in either of the submissions as made on behalf of the Petitioner. The writ is accordingly dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)