I am reproducing here parts of the Karnataka High Court decision imposing cost for seeking information on assets of officials.
This was posted by Sh. B.H. VEERESHA of MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA, Karnataka in Hum Janenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H.E.RAJASHEKARAPPA VS. STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & OTHERS
ORDER
Dr.Bhakthavatsala, J.
The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 30..6.2006 at Annexure-G.
The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:
The Respondent No.3 who is a retired Statistical Inspector made an application dt.17.3.2006 (Annexure B) to the Ist Respondent to furnish copy of Assets and Liabilities statement of the petitioner for the period 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The petitioner filed his objections to the application. The Respondent No.1 considering the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, rejectged the application by an order at Annexure "E". Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Respondent No.2/Appellate Authority. The respondent No.2/Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to furnish the details sought for by the Respondent No.3. Therfore, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the impugned order at Annexure"G" on the file of Respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for th epetitioner submkts that the Respondent No.3 had no locus standi to seek the details of petitioners Assets & Liabilities statement and the personal information of the petitioner sought for is not pertaining to public affair of the public authority. But, the Respondent No.2/Appellate Authority errred in setting aside the order made by Respondent No.1 and directing the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the Respondent No.3.
4. It is necessary to refer and expert Section 2(f),(h), (j) and Section of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, The Act).
xxxxxx
Para No.5:
The object of the Act is to provide right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In view of the above provisions excerpted, it can not be said that Section 2(f) of the Act encompasses the personal information of the officials of the public authority. The intention of the legislation is to provide right to information to a citizen pertaining to public affairs of the public authority. Therefore, the respondent No.3 haed no right under the Act to seek personal information of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 /appellant authority has erred in directing the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for the by the respondent No.3 .
As the respondent's application is vexatious and it is an attempt made to settle scores with the petitioner, it is a fit case to impose heavy costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.3.
6.
For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with cost s of Rs.10000/- in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.3. The impugned order dated 30.6.2006 at Annexure-G is quashed. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit cost s of Rs.5000/- in this Court within three months from today.
-------------------------------------------------
B.H. VEERESHA
MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
TEL.NO. Nine Four Four 8704693
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Rajendra Bakre mentioned above "Extremely hazardous decision for info seekers."