2007 Supreme(Guj) 496

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.N.PATEL
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION - Respondent
Spl. Civil Appln. 17067 Of 2007
Decided On : 08/16/2007

Headnote:Point in Issue :

       Whether respondent authorities were justified in disclosing the information about third party sought by original petitioner?

       Head Note :

       Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) - Sections 6, 7, 11, 18 and 19 - Petitioner and its group companies - Information sought about - Supplied by respondent authorities - Propriety of - Challenge against - Sustainability - Finding as to - The present petitioner is third party in the matter and looking to the provisions of Act, it has certain rights in relation to disclosure of any information relating to it or supplied by it - It has a right to have a written notice in details provided under the provisions of the Act if officer concerned (P.I.O.) intends to disclose or supply the same to the person seeking the same - The P.I.O. has to consider objections raised by third party and look to whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or wreak vendetta against the third party - The credentials and profile of the person seeking information must also be took into in the facts of the present case no such investigation was made, no such conclusion arrived at by respondent authorities before disclosing the information - The said rights of the third party have been violated by the respondent authorities - No notice was given to third party nor even the third party was heard before imparting the information by respondent authorities - The impugned orders are also non-speaking orders - Hence, the impugned orders dated 31.01.2007 and subsequent orders are quashed and set aside - The original applicant directed not to make use of the said information for any purpose whatsoever.

       Held :

       The Public Information Officer will have to consider the following:

       (i) The objections raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for.

       (ii) Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreak vendetta against the third party. In deciding that the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into. If the profile of the person seeking information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited.

       (iii) The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in the hands of a busy body to settle a personal score. [Para 11]

       There are certain rights conferred by the Act, 2005 to the third party, prior to disclosure of information. Likewise, as stated hereinabove, there are also certain rights, which are vested in the third party, after an order of disclosure of the information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party. As per Section 2(n) of the Act, 2005, the present petitioner is a third party. Looking to the provisions of the Act, 2005, especially Sections 7(7), 8(d) and 8(j) read with Section 11 as well as under Section 19 of the Act, 2005, third party has certain rights, in relation to disclosure of information relating to third party or supplied by third party [Para 15]

       The rights of the third party have been violated by the concerned respondent authorities. No notice was given to the third party, nor even the third party was heard before imparting the information by the respondent authorities. The impugned orders are non-speaking orders. Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. [Para 15]

       The original applicant - Rasiklal Mardia is hereby directed not to make use of said information for any purpose whatsoever. Respondent No. 1-Gujarat State Information Commission is hereby restrained from proceeding further with application preferred by the original applicant under Section 18 of the Act, 2005 being Complaint No. 541/2006-07. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in Special Civil Application No. 17067 of 2007 are hereby directed not to entertain any applications preferred at the instance of the original applicant under the provisions of the Act, 2005 concerning the petitioner and its group Companies for imparting or disclosing information to the original applicant, without following due procedure under the Act, 2005 and in compliance with the aforesaid directions given in the aforesaid paras of this judgment nor any such applications shall be proceeded further by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, except after following provisions of the Act, 2005 and interpretation thereof made hereinabove, in this judgment. [Para 16]

       Law Laid Down :

       Even if it is a time consuming process the principles of natural justice ought to be followed to ensure fairness in the decision by Public Information Officer.

       Conclusion :

       Respondent authorities have violated the rights of third party therefore, impugned orders are not sustainable same are quashed and set aside.

       Cases Referred :

       Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2158;; Dr. Rashlal Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1994 (5) SCC 267;; Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 280.

       Rule Made Absolute