W.P.(C)--7431/2011. Case: UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. DR. MAHESH MANGALAT. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--7431/2011 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | March 17, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:27th February, 2015 % Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 7431/2011
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms.
Aditi Gupta, Advocates.
versus
DR. MAHESH MANGALAT ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shomona Khanna, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
JUDGMENT
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order dated
20.07.2011 passed in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000270/SG by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „CIC‟). Through the said order CIC directed the petitioner‟s Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as „PIO‟) to provide complete information sought by the appellant/respondent (Dr. Mahesh Mangalat) as per available records, which included the Names, designation and address of the members of the Selection Committee.
2. The facts as borne out from the present petition are that respondent vide letter dated 24.04.2010 sought certain information under the Right to information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
„RTI Act‟) from the Petitioner. The queries raised by the respondent included the following request specifically:
“ 5. Name, designation and address of the members of the Selection Committee.”
The Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as „CPIO‟, vide letter dated 26.05.2010 declined to provide the aforementioned information sought for the reason:
“The members of Selection Committee furnish their personal details to the UPSC in a fiduciary relationship with the expectation that this information would not be disclosed to others. Hence, disclosure of information held by UPSC in a fiduciary capacity is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
3. Aggrieved by the denial of this information, the respondent filed an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act dated 21.06.2010 before the Appellate Authority, Joint Secretary (R-II), Union Public Service Commission, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. Vide Order dated
16.07.2010 the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal of the appellant for the reasons, inter alia that the individual identity of the members of the Interview Board are strictly confidential and cannot be revealed.
4. Against the aforementioned order, the respondent filed a second appeal on 08.09.2010 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the CIC. Vide impugned order dated 20.07.2011, CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent. In compliance with the Order dated 20.07.2011 of CIC the petitioner herein provided the requisite information as sought
by the respondent in his RTI Application dated 24.04.2010 excluding item No.5 (the specific issue mentioned above) from the RTI application of the respondent again.
5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.07.2011 passed by CIC the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and has been passed without appreciation of the contentions and arguments of the petitioner. While passing the impugned order dated 20.07.2011, the learned CIC has failed to appreciate the various exceptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. As per Section 8 of the RTI Act, the information sought by the respondent is exempted from disclosure. The information available with the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as „UPSC‟) establishes a relationship of mutual trust between UPSC and the person invited for interviewing and is fiduciary in nature.
7. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disclosure of personal details of the members of the Selection Committee like Name, designation and address is barred from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act also. Disclosure of such information would have caused unwarranted invasion of privacy of the Members of the Selection Committee and might also put the life and physical safety of the concerned members in danger. The petitioner is a trustee of the personal details/data provided by the members for evaluating their mettle alone and not for disseminating
these personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial