Gujarat HC disposes of IAS’s writ to quash RTI Commission order

Gujarat High Court on Thursday has disposed off the Senior Gujarat IAS Arvind Agrwal’s writ to quash the RTI Commission’s order to the state General Administration Department(GAD), Home and Forest Department Public Information Officer(PIO) to furnish the Annual Property Returns(APRs) of the State’s IAS, IPS and IFS officers maintaining the order of the Commission passed on 28th July 2010. However the Justice Akil Kureshi order that Commission shall have heard the concern officers and take their views too which it did not so concern PIOs been directed to issue fresh notice to all the officers and take their objections and decide as per the law.

Justice Kureshi observed,”If the order of the Chief Information Commissioner is left without any clarification in my opinion, there is a possibility of some ambiguity. In so far as the observations made in the previous portion of the order is concerned, there can not be any quarrel or disputes.(The Commission observed that discloser of the APRs is in the larger public interest and directed to furnish to the applicant citing various Supreme Court and its own orders). However, if the final directions are understood as to requiring the Information officer to supply documents demanded by respondent No.4(Kapil Dave,) herein, after notice to the concerned officers, issuance of notice would be rendered a mere formality.”

The Justice further mentioned that,”under this circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a clarification that the information officer shall on the information called for by respondent No.4, issue notice to all the concerned persons, take their objections into consideration and dispose of the same in accordance with law and pass final order as may be found necessary.”

Arvind Agrawal(1984 batch Gujarat cadre), senior IAS officer had filled a writ against Gujarat Government, State Right to Information(RTI), Commission, State General Administration Department(GAD) and the applicant to quash a RTI commission’s July 2010 order to GAD to furnish the Annual Property Returns(APRs) of state’s IAS, IPS and IFS officers. The Gujarat High Court had admitted Agrawal’s writ and held the hearing on 9th December 2010 and issued notice to all the parties. Agrawal has served on various crucial post in the state government and presently serving as Vice Chairman, MD, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation(GIDC).

Gujarat RTI Commission had in a land mark order, ordered the state Government to furnish the details Annual Property Return(APR)s of state’s most powerful IAS/IPS and IFS officers to the applicant in response to his appeal filled in October 2008. The purpose of the RTI application was to know who are the richest babus of Gujarat and does their property are higher then their source of income or not?

The State’s General Administration (GAD) and Forest & Environment department has denied information of APRs of these officials saying that it’s personal information of officials and can not be given under the RTI act, while State Home Department furnished APRs of only those IPS officers who allowed to give it.

The applicant sought information from the state government asking APRs, IT returns details and details of departmental inquires and police complaints against these babus. The Government had denied all these information.

The Commission headed by ex Government of India Secretary R.N.Das(IAS) noted in the order that,”the discloser of APRs of the officers/employees to the citizens under the RTI Act, 2005 under section 8(1) is untenable.’’

The Commission had further noted that,”APRs may contain personal information, it can not be said that it’s discloser has no relationship to any public interest or that its discloser would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Justice P.V.Reddy of the Supreme Court in Peoples Union of Civil Liberties v/s Union of India held that, ‘where there is competition between right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to subordinated to the later right as it serves large public interest. Any citizen seek the information of annual property returns of a public servant, that information should be disclosed to him. The commission held that the disclosure of APRs of public servant should be considered as a step to contain corruption as its discloser may reveal instances where property has been acquired which may be disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servants.’’

The Commission also ordered to furnish the details of departmental inquires and police complaints against these officials as its public information. The Commission has ordered all three departments of the state Government namely, GAD, Home and F&E to issue notice to all the IAS, IPS and IFS officials for hearing their objections as third party and furnish all the details of APRs to the applicant in 40 days thereafter free of charge.

Agrwal in his writ pleaded to the HC that,”the petitioner(Agrawal) challenges an illegal, unjust, improper and erroneous order passed by respondent No-2-Chief Information Commissioner dated 28-07-2010 passed in exercise of powers under section 19 of the RTI Act 2005 in Appeal No.1474/08-09, thereby appeal of respondent No.4(Kapil Dave) was partly allowed with direction to respondent No-3(GAD) to furnish information as sought for by respondent No-4 by giving notice to concerned officers whose Annual Property Returns would be sought by respondent No.4.Thus, on one hand mandatory directions are given by respondent No-2(Commission) to respondent No-4 to give information and on the other hand without third party/officers were to be heard by giving notice which would be an empty formality by respondent No-3. Moreover, the information sought by respondent No-4 from PIO viz.Annual Returns of properties and liabilities of all the IAS officers would not fall in the definition of Information as well as they are not required to be furnished to respondent No-4 by respondent No-3 in view of provisions of section 8 relative to exemption from discloser of information, especially Sub Section 1(e)(j) and section 7(9) of the Act. While passing impugned order by respondent No-2, the petitioner and other similarly situated IAS officers were not heard while remanding the matter any by giving such directions which are in nature of mandatory directions to respondent No-3(GAD). Therefore, the order suffers from non-compliance of principle of natural justice as well as it is violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order of Respondent No-2(Commission) dated 28-07-10 deserve to be quashed and set aside.”