Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2660
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Central Electronics Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Amarwant Singh - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8654 of 2018 & C.M. No. 33242 of 2018
Decided On : 20-09-2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja and Mr. Ashwani Ahuja, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. J.K. Nayyar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of information under the RTI Act must be justified and in accordance with the exemptions provided in the Act, and the Public Authority/CPIO must apply its mind before denying information.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Right to Information - 8(1)d - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of section 8(1)d of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless larger public interest warrants the disclosure. The court emphasized that the information sought by the respondent did not fall under any of these exemptions and was relevant to the dispute between the parties. The court also highlighted the obligation of the Public Authority/CPIO to apply its mind before denying information under any provision of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to challenge an order by the Central Information Commission directing the petitioner to provide information sought under the RTI Act. The respondent, a constituent partner of a firm, sought test reports of electric cables supplied by the petitioner and details of payments for testing charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of information to the respondent was unjustified and unsustainable. It dismissed the petition with costs and allowed the respondent to file a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the CIC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the information sought by the respondent was exempt from disclosure under clause (d) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the information sought did not fall under the exemptions provided in section 8(1)d of the RTI Act and emphasized the obligation of the Public Authority/CPIO to apply its mind before denying information under any provision of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-, and the respondent was allowed to file a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the CIC.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘the CIC’), directing the petitioner (respondent therein) to provide information as sought for by the respondent (the appellant therein). The respondent had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (hereafter ‘the RTI Act’), inter alia, seeking the following information:-
“(A) Kindly provide me Test Reports of Electric Cables got tested by the Central Electronics Limited, Sahibabad from any Govt. Laboratory during 2013 and details of payments testing charges made.
(B) Kindly provide me Test Reports of Electric Cables got tested by the Central Electronics Limited, Sahibabad from any Govt. Laboratory during 2014 and details of payments of testing charges made.”
2. It is relevant to note that the respondent is a constituent partner of a firm, M/s Friends Cable Industries, which had supplied the cables to the petitioner pursuant to a tender floated by the petitioner on 14.02.2012.
3. On 14.02.2012, the petitioner had invited tenders for procurement of “Cable 24/0.2 ATC Braided 2 Core(Red, Black) PVC Insulated PVC Sheathed(Grey) Shielded Cable 650v grade Cables OD dia 7.2mm to 7.88mm” (hereafter ‘the Cables’). M/s Friends Cable Industries (hereafter ‘the Vendor’) submitted its bid pursuant to the said invitation and the same was accepted.
4. On 22.05.2012, the petitioner issued a Purchase Order (Purchase Order bearing no.36051 dated 22.05.2012 for supply of 42000 meters of cable) conforming to the specifications as stated in the tender notice. The Vendor supplied the 41.03 kms. of the cables in three lots. Concededly, the Cables supplied were initially inspected and acceptance test was conducted. The petitioner states that, subsequently, in the month of December, 2012, certain cracks were observed in the sheath of the Cable near the neck of around 45 Web Detectors (from a total of 728) manufactured from the Cable and supplied by the Vendor. The petitioner states that, thereafter, it subjected the Cables to a physical inspection and found the same to be defective. Several communications were sent to the Vendor calling upon it to replace the said Cables and to compensate the losses allegedly suffered by the petitioner in the manufacture of 728 Web Detectors from the defective Cables supplied by the firm. The said disputes could not be resolved and were referred to the sole arbitrator appointed by the Allahabad High Court. The arbitral proceedings are continuing.
5. In the meanwhile, on 26.09.2017, the respondent filed an application seeking information as noted above.
6. The Public Information Officer of the petitioner responded to the said application by a letter dated 10.10.2017, which reads as under:
“The information sought in (A) and (B) are of commercial confidence and trade secret and no public interest is involved. Hence, denied under section 8(1)d of the RTI act 2005.”
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid response by the denial of information, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA concurred with the CPIO and rejected the appeal by an order dated 04.12.2017.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 02.05.2018.
9. In the aforesaid facts, the only question to be considered is whether the information as sought for by the respondent was exempt from disclosure under clause (d) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The said clause reads as under:-
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, u
