|S.No.||HIGH COURT CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||Writ Petition Nos. 9971, 10731 and 10732 of 2013||19 Apr, 2018||Appellants: The State of Maharashtra Vs. Respondent: The Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.
RTI Application sought certified or true copies of information regarding proposal dated 26/7/06 submitted by ACP, ATS alongwith, investigation papers before Addl. DGP Shri Sanjeev S. Dayal(L. & O) for obtaining Sanction Order u/s. 23(2) of MCOC Act, 1999 and Police Manual. His application was rejected by the Information Officer resorting to provisions of Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. The applicant thereafter, approached the first Appellate Authority. His appeal was also dismissed. He approached Chief Information Commissioner by way of second appeal. This appeal was disposed of by the impugned order whereunder the petitioners were directed to give copies of the police manual to respondent No. 2 as well as upload the same on the website of the Maharashtra Police.
Mrs. Thakur, learned AGP relying upon the provisions of section 8(1)(e), (g) and (h) and 8(2) submitted that the police manual is confidential document and same cannot be made available to respondent No. 2 neither the same can be uploaded on the website of the Maharashtra Police.
The Hon’ble High Court judgement said “RTI Applicant in the present case is not seeking any information as contemplated under section 8(1) (e), (g) and (h). Police Manual cannot be equated with the information and therefore, there is no impediment in giving copies thereof to him. Sub-section 8(2) has no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Judicial note can be taken of the fact that police manual is Government publication and copies of same are easily available. We therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order. The petitions are devoid of any merits. The same are accordingly dismissed”.
|2||W.P. (C) 5812/2010||08 Nov, 2013||UPSC Vs Pinki Ganeriwala
In the present case, information such as date of birth,institution and year of passing graduation, field experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates. There is no finding by the Commission that it was in larger public interest to disclose the aforesaid personal information of the recommended candidates. Even in his application seeking information the respondent did not claim that any larger public interest was involved in disclosing the aforesaid information. In the absence of such a claim in the application and a finding to this effect by the commission no direction for disclosure of the aforesaid personal information could have been given.