Tejas Mehta; Law et al News; Ahmedabad; 18 November 2010
The Gujarat High Court has issued notices to the state government, public information officer, chief information commissioner and a journalist following a senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer’s petition.
The officer, Arvind Agrawal, approached the High Court seeking it to quash and set aside an order that directed the state government to furnish the Annual Property Returns (APRs) of state's IAS, IPS and IFS officers. Agrawal, is serving as vice chairman/managing director of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC).
State Chief information commissioner had ordered the state Government to furnish the APRs of state’s senior most IAS/IPS and IFS officers to one Kapil Dave, a Mail Today Correspondent in response to his appeal filed in October 2008. The purpose of the RTI application was to know the richest babus of Gujarat and whether their property was disproportionate to their known source of income?
The State’s General Administration and Forest & Environment department had denied information of APRs of these officials saying that it’s personal information of officials and cannot be given under the RTI act, while State Home Department furnished APRs of only those IPS officers who consented to share it.
The Commission headed by ex Government of India Secretary RN Das (IAS) noted in the order that, "APRs may contain personal information, it cannot be said that it’s disclosure has no relationship to any public interest or that its disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Relying upon the judgement by Justice PV Reddy of the Supreme Court in Peoples Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, where the court had held that in case of conflict between public interest and private interest to maintain privacy, the public interest would retain primacy, the commission held that the disclosure of APRs of public servant should be considered as a step to contain corruption as its disclosure 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 holding that it was part of public information. The Commission has ordered all three departments of the state government 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.
The Gujarat High Court has issued notices to the state government, public information officer, chief information commissioner and a journalist following a senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer’s petition.
The officer, Arvind Agrawal, approached the High Court seeking it to quash and set aside an order that directed the state government to furnish the Annual Property Returns (APRs) of state's IAS, IPS and IFS officers. Agrawal, is serving as vice chairman/managing director of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC).
State Chief information commissioner had ordered the state Government to furnish the APRs of state’s senior most IAS/IPS and IFS officers to one Kapil Dave, a Mail Today Correspondent in response to his appeal filed in October 2008. The purpose of the RTI application was to know the richest babus of Gujarat and whether their property was disproportionate to their known source of income?
The State’s General Administration and Forest & Environment department had denied information of APRs of these officials saying that it’s personal information of officials and cannot be given under the RTI act, while State Home Department furnished APRs of only those IPS officers who consented to share it.
The Commission headed by ex Government of India Secretary RN Das (IAS) noted in the order that, "APRs may contain personal information, it cannot be said that it’s disclosure has no relationship to any public interest or that its disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Relying upon the judgement by Justice PV Reddy of the Supreme Court in Peoples Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, where the court had held that in case of conflict between public interest and private interest to maintain privacy, the public interest would retain primacy, the commission held that the disclosure of APRs of public servant should be considered as a step to contain corruption as its disclosure 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 holding that it was part of public information. The Commission has ordered all three departments of the state government 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.
.JPG)
.JPG)
