Multani and anr. Vs. Shah Abdu Turab Qadari and ors.

- section 11: [b. sreenivase gowda, j] third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a b.b.m.p. employee question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information? held, the information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and assets and liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of section 11 of the act. if the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend 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 on view while taking a decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under section 11 of the act. on facts, held, the 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by respondent no.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent no. 4 as contemplated under section 11 of the act. ordera. narayana pai, j.1. the facts of this case are not different from those in the case decided by this court in malkappa v. padmanna 36 mys lj 800 : a.i.r. 1959 mys 122. it is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the magistrate in the circumstances should have considered whether it was at all necessary for him to proceed with the enquiry under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure.the learned counsel for the respondent relying upon another decision of this court reported in imambu v. hussenbi 38 mys lj 192 : a.i.r. 1960 mys 203 argues that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not take away the jurisdiction as a magistrate acting under section 145 of the cr ipc or absolve him from his duty of acting in the interests of public peace.but, there is no conflict between the two decisions. in the latter case also his lordship hegde, j. points out that where there is a recent decision of a civil court regarding possession of the property in dispute, the criminal court should act in support of that decision. the decision of this civil court referred to by his lordship in the said' judgment is not to be confined to final decisions in the suits by way of decrees. even when an interim injunction is granted for the duration of a pending suit for perpetual injunction the civil court does come to a prima facie finding that the? party in whose favour it grants the injunction is in possession of the property, in respect of which the injunction is granted.as in the case reported in 36 mys lj 800 : a.i.r. 1959 mys 122 so in this case also one of the parties had already gone to a civil court with a suit for perpetual injunction and obtained an order of interim injunction. the injunction was also not one made ex parte but had been made absolute after notice to the defendant. although it is stated that on an appeal preferred to the district court the injunction granted by the trial court has been stayed or its operation suspended, such a stay does not.....