The main legal point established in the judgment is that information sought under the Right to Information Act should be provided unless it is exclusively related to a party and should not be considered confidential. Additionally, information sought without specifying the documents and without considering objections may prejudice the party and should not be provided without a hearing.

Heard Ms. R.P. Jog, advocate holding for Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, the learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.B. Patil, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, Ms Tajwar Khan, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Shamal Kadu, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 4

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petition takes exception to the order passed by the State Information Commission directing the Public Information Officer to provide the information sought by the respondent No. 4 regarding Item Nos. 4 and 5 stated in his application. According to the petitioner, the information sought by the respondent No. 4 and ordered to be provided, is concerned with the petitioner and as per the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, (for short ' Act of 2005') the Commission could not have directed the Public Information Officer to provide the information without giving notice and without granting hearing to the petitioner.

4. The respondent No. 4 sought information as per his application dated 31st January, 2011 from the Public Information Officer. On receipt of the application, the Public Information Officer issued the communication dated 5th February, 2011 to the petitioner seeking its say as to why the information sought by the respondent No. 4 as per Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the application should not be provided to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 23rd February, 2011 and opposed the supplying of the information to the respondent No. 4. The Public Information Officer by the communication dated 4th March, 2011 informed the respondent No.4 that the information sought by him vide Item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the application cannot be provided in view of the provisions of Section 11(3) and Section 8(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Act of 2005. The respondent No. 4 being aggrieved in the matter filed appeal before the State Commission which is allowed by the impugned order.

5. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the information sought by the respondent No. 4 relates to the petitioner and it is confidential and cannot be provided to the respondent No. 4. It is submitted that the Section 19(4) of the Act of 2005 casts an obligation on the Commission to grant opportunity of hearing to the party with which the information is related. It is submitted that the Commission has neither given any notice nor has granted hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is illegal having been passed in contravention of the mandate of Section 19(4) of the Act of 2005. In support of her submissions, the learned advocate has relied on the following judgments:

(i) Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2007 (3) Bom CR 134 : (AIR 2007 Bom 121),

(ii) SKIL Infrastructure Private Limited & Anr. v. State Information Commissioner & Ors., reported at 2011 (Supp) Bom CR 835 : (2010 (3) AIR Bom R 522) and

(iii) R.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr., reported at 2013(6) SCALE 49 : (2013 (3) AIR Bom R 1110).

6. Shri Kadu, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the information sought vide Item No. 5 is regarding Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Government of Maharashtra and the petitioner and the information contained in the document cannot be treated as trade secret or of commercial confidence and it cannot be said to be exempted under Section 8 of the Act of 2005. It is submitted that the information contained in the abovementioned document cannot be said to be information exclusively related to the petitioner and it being a Memorandum of Understanding executed on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra, the respondent No. 4 is entitled for the information and it cannot be withheld on the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner. As far as the information sought vide Item No. 4 of the application is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that those document