HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 615 of 2025 Sh. Harish Chandra Shah ….....Petitioner Versus Central Public Information Commission and others ….….Respondents Present:- Dr. Govind Singh Latwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner sought information on nine points from the respondent no.2. The information was denied by the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 of the respondent no.3 (Annexure 7). It was challenged in first appeal. The first appeal was decided on 10.07.2023. The appellate authority held that information on first point may be given, but the information pertaining to other points i.e. 2 to 9 relates to third party and is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the Act”). The second appeal was preferred before the Chief Information Commissioner Uttarakhand, which was also rejected on 29.10.2024. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner is before this Court challenging all those orders with the direction to the respondent to provide the information sought for by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. The petitioner had sought information on the following points:- “(A) Action taken by the bank on the complain letter of the petitioner dated 25-04-2023. (B) Date of Loan Application by the Respondent 5. (C) The copy of Sale Deed/Registry submitted by the Respondent no.5 as collateral for bank loan. (D) The approved Map plan submitted by Respondent no.5 with loan application. (E) No dues from other banks taken by Respondent bank before releasing the loan. (F) Details of first loan instalment released by the bank and total loan disbursal and instalment till date. (G) Has the Bank have taken decision on permanent stopping of the loan instalment disbursement. (H) Has the bank have taken any punishment proceedings of one time recovery of loan amount against respondent no.5 in regards to wilful concealment by the respondent no.5 while applying for loan. (I) Has the bank on petitioner’s complain letter dated 25- 04-2023 initiated bank architect survey for the construction undertaken by the respondent no. 5 in compliance to the map approved by the town and planning department.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.5 was raising the construction on his land, which was disputed. The petitioner informed the Bank that the land is in dispute. But, despite that, it is argued, that the loan was granted and construction was raised by the respondent no.5, therefore, the information was sought. 3 Learned counsel would submit that the respondent no.3 gave information of 12 points, whereas it was sought on 9 points, which it is argued reveal that the application of the petitioner was not seriously taken. It is also argued that larger public interest requires that the information be given so that the money of the bank could be protected. 5. Granting loan by the bank to an individual is something personal for that individual. The loan details of the respondent no.5 are being sought by the petitioner. The information on the point no. 1 i.e. action taken by the bank on the complaint of the petitioner has already been supplied to the petitioner as stated at bar. The other information have been denied on the ground that they relate to third party and are personal in nature. The first appellate authority has specifically quoted the provision of 8 (1) (j), which reads as follows:- “8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen.- (a).................................................................... (b).................................................................... (c)...................................................................... ........................................................................ .......................................................................... (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public 4 Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.” 6. Learned counsel for petitioner would refer to the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act to argue that if the information was denied, the authorities should have also considered the aspect of the larger public interest because if larger public interest warrants, such information may be disclosed. Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act is as below:- “8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen.- (a).................................................................... (b).................................................................... (c)...................................................................... (d)..................................................................... (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.” 7. As stated, the information at point nos. 2 to 9 as stated hereinbefore, is much personal pertaining to the respondent no.5 and this information has no relationship with any public activity or interest. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities have rightly denied the information to 5 the petitioner. There is no substance in this petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 9. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 25.02.2025 Jitendra