Hizbullah v. Central Information Commission and Ors

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning orders dated 22.06.2015.and 02.07.2015 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter 'the CIC) in the second appeals preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner essentially seeks the passengermanifest ofcertain passengers travelling on unscheduled flights during the period of general elections. The petitioner claims that he is an Investigative Joumahst and there is agood ground to beheve that politicians travel by private aircrafts during the election period without accounting for the same. 2018:DHC:9134 J'-

2. He submits that there is a larger public interest that would be served if the information soughtfor by the petitioner is provided.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that this aspect was not raised by the petitioner either before the Public Information Officer (PIO) or the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and readily concedes that the same was not considered by either the concerned PIO or the appellate authorities.

4. It is also seen that the petitioner was not represented beforethe CIC.

5. The learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to seek theinformation afresh.

6. In view of the above, it is necessary to observe that it would be open for the petitioner to apply for the information as sought for and to persuade the concerned PIO or the Appellate Authority that a larger public interest is involved.

7. It is also clarified that the question whether a passenger manifest contains 'personal information' which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)G) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is reserved and the petitioner is not precluded from contending that provisions ofSection 8(1)G) ofthe Right toInformation Act, 2005 are not applicable.

8. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid - observations and liberty as sought.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J