NARSING GANPATRAO ANKUSHKARversusBALAJI PANDHARINATH THORAT AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:16204
                                       1                        945.WP.4075-2015.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     945 WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2015

             Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar
             Age : 50 years. Occ.Service,
             R/o. Aamkeshwar Nagar, Barshi Road,
             Latur, Dist. Latur.

                                     VERSUS
             1.      Balaji Pandharinath Thorat
                     Age : Major, Occ. Nil
                     R/o. At Patharad (Railway Station)
                     Post Mughat, Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
             2.      Additional Superintendent of Police,
                     Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nanded.

             3.      Superintendent of Police,
                     Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nanded Region,
                     Nanded, Dist. Nanded.

                                      ******

    Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Aditya G. Chavan h/f. Mr. Khandare N.B.
               AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni
          Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Suryawanshi G.G.

                                    ******
                                 CORAM : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.
                                   DATE        :   08.04.2026

             FINAL ORDER :

             .       Heard.

             2.      Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the

             consent of the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.
                             2                       945.WP.4075-2015.doc




3.   By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned         order    dated      15.01.2015    passed        by         the

Commissioner, State Information Commission, Bench at

Aurangabad in Appeal No.2014/RMA/ Appeal/CR/3593 by

which      the   said    Appellate     Authority   has   directed           the

Information Officer to provide the information in respect of

service record of the petitioner.

4.   Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the

petitioner initially was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector and

at   the    relevant      time,   he    was   working      as      Deputy

Superintendent of Police at Anti-Corruption Bureau, Latur.

The respondent No.1 herein who infact has no concern

whatsoever to seek the information about service record of

the petitioner nor belongs to the caste of the petitioner,

applied for seeking information in respect of service record

of the petitioner from the Information Officer as per the

provisions of Section 11 of ‘The Right to Information Act,

2005 (hereinafter referred in short ‘the RTI Act’)

5.   It is further contended that the application filed by the
                          3                      945.WP.4075-2015.doc



respondent No.1 was rejected by the Information Officer so

also the First Appeal filed by him before the first Appellate

Authority came to be rejected on 02.09.2014. He would

submit that respondent No.1 thereafter, preferred Second

Appeal    before   the     Commissioner,      State    Information

Commission, Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter called as

‘Second   Appellate      Authority’).   The   Second       Appellate

Authority has shown total disregard to the provisions of

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as if at all the personal

information of the petitioner was to be supplied, the Second

Appellate Authority ought to have arrived at a subjective

satisfaction as to whether the personal information of the

petitioner regarding his service record involves a larger

public interest.

6.   He further submits that since the information sought is

in respect of a third party (petitioner herein ) therefore, in

view of Section 11 of the RTI Act, the petitioner ought to

have been given sufficient opportunity of hearing. He

therefore, urged that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed

by setting aside the impugned order.
                        4                      945.WP.4075-2015.doc



7.   Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Suryawanshi appearing

for respondent No.1 submits that the information was

pertaining to the social status of the petitioner as according

to learned counsel for respondent No.1, the petitioner has

secured employment from reserved category. He would

further submit that in order to ascertain whether the tribe

validity certificate submitted by the petitioner while securing

the said employment is genuine or not, the Respondent No.1

felt it necessary to seek information in that regard.


8.   He    would   further   submit    that   securing        public

employment on the basis of so called validity certificate, have

affected the public at large and particularly those who are

belonging to Scheduled Caste. He therefore, urge that the

Second Appellate Authority has rightly allowed the appeal

filed by respondent No.1 thereby, directing the Information

Officer to supply the information about the service record of

the petitioner.


9.   Having heard rival submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for
                            5                          945.WP.4075-2015.doc



the respondent No.1 as well as learned AGP, the provision of

RTI Act that falls for consideration reads thus :

    “8. Exemption from disclosure of information-(1)
    Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall
    be no obligation to give any citizen,-

    (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect
    the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic,
    scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with
    foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

    (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be
    published by any Court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of
    which may constitute contempt of Court;
    (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach
    of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
    (d) information including commercial confidence, trade
    secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would
    harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the
    competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest
    warrants the disclosure of such information;
    (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary
    relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that
    the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
    information;

    (f) information    received    in   confidence   from    foreign
    Government;
    (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the
    life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of
    information or assistance given in confidence for law
    enforcement or security purposes;

    (h) information which would impede the process                  of
    investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

    (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the
    Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
                               6                          945.WP.4075-2015.doc



           Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers,
           the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis
           of which the decisions were taken shall be made
           public after the decision has been taken, and the
           matter is complete, or over.

            Provided further that those matters which come
            under the exemptions specified in this section shall
            not be disclosed;
      [(j) information which relates to personal information:]
           Provided that the information which cannot be
           denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature
           shall not be denied to any person.

      (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act,
      1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in
      accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow
      access to information, if public interest in disclosure
      outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
      (3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-
      section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event
      or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened
      twenty years before the date on which any request is made
      under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a
      request under that section:

        Provided that where any question arises as to the date from
      which the said period of twenty years has to be computed,
      the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject
      to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.”

10.    The provisions of Section 8 speaks of exemption from

disclosure of information wherein, certain informations have

been exempted from the purview of disclosure which

includes the information in relation to personal information.

It could thus be seen that the information relating to a
                                7                           945.WP.4075-2015.doc



personal      information        has    been     exempted        from        being

supplied.

11.    So far as the aspect with regard to granting an

opportunity of hearing to a third party whose information is

sought to be supplied, Section 11 contemplates issuance of

notice to third party and offering sufficient opportunity of

hearing to him. Section 11 of the RTI Act reads thus :

      “11. Third party information.-(1) Where a Central Public
      Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the
      case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part
      thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has
      been supplied by a third party and has been treated as
      confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information
      Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
      shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a
      written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact
      that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
      Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the
      information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party
      to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the
      information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third
      party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about
      disclosure of information:

      Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets
      protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest
      in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury
      to the Interests of such third party.

      (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information
      Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
      under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information
      or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days
      from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to
      make representation against the proposed disclosure.
                                8                            945.WP.4075-2015.doc



      (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central
      Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
      the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the
      request under section 6, if the third party has been given an
      opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a
      decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record
      or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the
      third party.

      (4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement
      that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to
      prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.”


12.    In the light of provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act, it

is abundantly clear that when an information in respect of

third party is sought to be disclosed, then the same cannot

be done without complying with the mandatory requirement

of Section 11 of the RTI Act. In the present case, admittedly,

the Second Appellate Authority has not given notice of the

appeal to the petitioner who infact is an affected party. I am

therefore, of the considered view that the Second Appellate

Authority has failed to comply with the said mandatory

requirement of Section 11 of the RTI Act. With regard to the

compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 11 of the RTI

Act, this Court in the case of Skill Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.

And another vs. State Information Commissioner and

others reported in 2010(3) Mh.L.J.193 observed thus :
                               9                          945.WP.4075-2015.doc




      7. Further we find that neither the First Appellate Authority
      nor the Second Appellate Authority gave notice of the appeal
      to the petitioner who is vitally affected by any order passed
      by it. Any order passed by a quasi judicial authority affecting
      the rights of third party could not have been passed without
      such third party being a party in the proceedings and/or
      party in the proceedings without being given notice or even if
      not strictly a formal party without being given a reasonable
      opportunity. From a reading of section 11 it must follow, that
      if any person who seeks information of a third party, in the
      event the original Authority rejects the application will have
      to add such a third party as party. No appeal without such
      party can be proceeded with. Also such third party if
      aggrieved could challenge the order. This view would be
      supported by the specific provisions of section 19(4) of the Act
      which reads as follows:-
          “19(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information
          Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
          may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to
          information of a third party, the Central Public
          Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,
          as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity
          of being heard to that third party."
          It is thus clear that the third party must have an
          opportunity of being heard and this could be done only
          in the event such a party is made a party in the
          proceedings before the Appellate Authority.”

13.    The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Public

Information         Officer,       Supreme      Court      of     India          vs.

Subhash Chandra Agarwal reported in (2020) 5 SCC 481

while answering the said issue has held that, in case where

the information sought is a personal information within the

meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the mandatory

provision contemplated under Section 11 of RTI Act needs to
                             10                             945.WP.4075-2015.doc



be complied with before passing an order by issuing notice

as well as giving an opportunity of hearing to the third party.

14.   It is also pertinent to note that whenever an information

in respect of a third party is to be supplied which falls within

the ambit of exemption by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI

Act, the Information Officer or the Appellate Authority as the

case may be, has to arrive at a satisfaction that disclosure of

the said personal information involves a larger public

interest.   The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Girish

Ramchandra          Deshpande           Vs.     Central        Information

Commissioner and Ors. reported in 2013(1) SCC 212

while considering the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI

Act has observed thus :

        “13.      We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts
        below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of
        all memos issued to the third Respondent, show cause
        notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified
        to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section
        8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer
        in an organization is primarily a matter between the
        employee and the employer and normally those aspects are
        governed by the service rules which fall under the expression
        "personal information", the disclosure of which has no
        relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the
        other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted
        invasion of privacy of that individual. of course, in a given
        case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State
        Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is
        satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
                          11                          945.WP.4075-2015.doc



        disclosure of such information,appropriate orders could be
        passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a
        matter of right.”

15.   Similarly, this Court in the case of Subhash Bajirao

Khemnar vs. Shri Dilip Nayku Thorat and Ors. decided

on 22.08.2013 in Writ Petition No.1825 of 2013 while

considering the issue with regard to supplying of the

personal information, has reiterated that unless the Chief

Information Commissioner or the first Appellate Authority or

the Second Appellate Authority are satisfied that the

disclosure of such information is necessary in the larger

public interest, the personal information cannot be supplied.

16.   From the above legal position, I am of the considered

view that the impugned order passed by the second

Appellate Authority is not only contrary to the provisions of

Section 8 (1) (j) as the information relates to service record

of the petitioner i.e. his personal information and has been

clearly exempted from the purview of disclosure, but also

contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act as the

Second Appellate Authority before directing to supply the

personal   information     of   the   petitioner,    has     not      given

sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is
                                   12                       945.WP.4075-2015.doc



        mandatory as per the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act.

        17.     I therefore, pass the following order :

                                         ORDER

              i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

              ii)The impugned order dated 15.01.2015 in Appeal

              No.2014/RMA/       Appeal/CR/3593    passed      by     the

              Commissioner,      State    Information   Commission,

              Bench at Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set-

              aside.

              iii)     Rule is made absolute in above terms.




                                           ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )

V.S.Joshi