The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Right to Information Act 2005 confers an independent legal right to seek information, and the provisions of section 8 (1) (d), (g), (j) of the Act do not apply when the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of information.

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1806 of 2015

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated January 31, 2015, passed by the 1st respondent – the State Information Commissioner, whereby the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short the “Act”), has been allowed directing the 2nd respondent to provide information to the 3rd respondent as per his application made under Section 6 of the Act. In a nutshell the facts are:

2. The 3rd respondent is stated to be the Sole administrator of the estate and effects of one late E. F. Dinshaw. A Development agreement dated January 2,1995 came to be entered between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner, under which the petitioner agreed to develop lands belonging to the estate of late E.F. Dinshaw situated at Malad (West), Mumbai. An irrevocable power of attorney was also executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner. Disputes arose between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent sometime in 2008. On May 12, 2008 the 3rd respondent terminated the development agreement as also the power of attorney. Thereafter on May 13, 2008 the 3rd respondent filed Civil Suit no. 1628 of 2008 in this Court inter alia seeking a declaration that the said development agreement and the power of attorney are validly terminated. It is the Petitioner's case that in the proceedings of this suit, which is pending adjudication, the 3rd respondent had sought documents pertaining to the development undertaken by the petitioners in respect of the said lands. However the 3rd respondent

could not succeed in this attempt.

3. The 3rd respondent submitted an application under section 6 (1) of the Act, to the Public Information Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay on December 10, 2012 demanding information pertaining to these lands. The information as applied was for the certified copies of the property card, certified copies of plans and amendments to the plans as submitted by the petitioner or its architects, certified copies of all layouts, subdivision plans and amendments, certified copies of development plans and amendments thereon and certified copies of all reports submitted to the Municipal Commissioner and his approval thereon.

4. By a letter dated January 2, 2013 of the petitioners advocate, an objection was raised as permissible to be raised by a third party under the provisions of section 11 of the Act, interalia stating that the information as applied for by the 3rd respondent does not serve a social or public interest but the information was sought for a private interest for the purposes of suit number 1628 of 2008, which was sub-judice in this Court. It was stated that an attempt to seek such information in the suit proceedings had failed right up to the Supreme Court. It was the petitioner's case that the 3rd respondent was a competitor of the petitioner and disclosure of the information would cause harm and injury to the business of the petitioner company as also would violate the intellectual property rights. Information as sought by the 3rd respondent were also trade secrets and thus would be detrimental to the business of petitioner interest as also in the pending suit and proceedings in various Courts.

5. By an order dated January 8, 2013, the public information officer rejected the application of the 3rd respondent taking into consideration the objections as raised on behalf of the petitioner. The public information officer recorded that information as applied for by the 3rd respondent was hit by the provisions of section 8 (1) (d), 8 (1) (g), 8 (1) (j), 9 and 11 (1) of the Act. It was recorded that the information sought by the 3rd respondent was for personal use and not for public interest.

6. The 3rd respondent filed a first appeal against the order of the Public Information Officer, under section 19 (1) of the Act before the first appella