IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2008
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE N KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7953 OF 2007 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. H Ramakrishna Gowda
Aged about 48 years
Managing Director
Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Ltd.,
Post Box No.198
42, Ist Floor, M.C. & A House
Miller Road, Bangalore 560 052 Petitioner
(By Sri. V Srinivas, Advocate)
And
1. Karnataka Information Commission
M S Building, Bangalore
Represented by its Commissioner
2. Sri. R Mohan Kumar
No.8, Jameya Complex
Maddur Town, Mandya District. Respondent
(By Sri. Veerappa, AGA for R1:
Resp9ondent -2 Served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, praying t6o call for records in KIC 482 COM 2007 on the file of first
respondent i.e. Karnataka State Information Commission and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
ORDER
1. The Petitioner who is the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Coir
Development Corporation Limited, has preferred this writ petition challenging
the order of the Chief Information Commissioner of State of Karnataka, where
he has been directed to furnish the particulars sought for by the second
respondent.
The particulars sought for are in the nature of the property at Mysore, where
is residing, belongs to him, whether the same has been disclosed in the
declaration to be given and who are the members of his family and in whose name
the property stands. The grievance of the petitioner is that furnishing of the
said particulars would result in unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual and therefore under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act,
2005, there is exemption from disclosure of information,.
I do not find any substance in the said contention. Section 8 of the Right to
Information act, 2005, no doubt deals with exemption from disclosure of
information. Clause (j) of Section 8 deals with information which relates to
personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy
of the individual unless the Central Public Information officer, or the State
Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information, provided that the information which can not be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Every public servant has to disclose all his assets and members of his family.
In fact the said disclosure has been made by the petitioner in the usual
course. The particulars sought for is with reference to the said particulars
which he has already disclosed. Therefore, as is clear from clause (j) of
Section 8,such information is not exempted. Therefore, the authorities were
justified in passing the impugned order. No case for interference is made
out. Hence writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
B.H. VEERESHA
MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
TEL.NO. 9448704693
Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
