Back
High Court of Rajasthan
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
RPSC
Versus
Jagdish Narain Pandey
Civil Writ Petition No.13740 of 2008
Decided On : 19-04-2012
RTI ACT - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - INFORMATION DISCLOSURE - EXEMPTION - SECTION 8(1)(D) - LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST: The Public Service Commission (PSC) is a public authority under the RTI Act and is obligated to provide information to the public. However, certain information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Public Service Commission (PSC), challenged an order of the Chief Information Commissioner directing it to provide certain information to the respondent, who had participated in a selection process for the post of Lecturer (Geography) College Education but was unsuccessful. The PSC claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the information sought by the respondent was not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The court noted that the information did not relate to commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, and that the disclosure of the information would not harm the competitive position of any third party. The court also held that the larger public interest warranted the disclosure of the information, as it would promote transparency and accountability in the working of the PSC.
Issues: 1. Whether the information sought by the respondent was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act? 2. Whether the larger public interest warranted the disclosure of the information?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: 1. The RTI Act is a pro-disclosure legislation and should be interpreted liberally in favor of disclosure. 2. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act exempts certain information from disclosure, but only if the disclosure of the information would harm the competitive position of a third party. 3. The larger public interest may warrant the disclosure of information that is otherwise exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the PSC's petition and directed it to provide the information to the respondent within fifteen days.
Instant petition is directed against order dt.13/06/2008 (Ann.6) passed by Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur on application filed by respondent-1 whereby the petitioner (RPSC) has been directed to provide relevant information desired by respondent-1 being under obligation to furnish as contemplated under Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).
Petitioner (Public Service Commission) being constitutional functionary created by Govt.of Rajasthan U/Art.315 & 316 is discharging its functions as per powers conferred U/Art.320 of Constitution of India and is indeed a public authority being covered U/s 2(h) of RTI Act.
Ms Monica Sharma daughter-in-law of Respondent-1 participated in the process of selection held on January 15, 2008 for the post of Lecturer (Geography) College Education and after having remained unsuccessful, an application was filed by him in the Office of Public Information Officer of petitioner (RPSC) on 06/02/2008 demanding certain informations with reference to process of selection held by RPSC for the post in question. It is relevant to quote six informations desired by respondent-1 ad infra:
“1. -----
2. -----
3. -----
4. -----
5. -----
6. ------"
These informations were not furnished by Public Information Officer within thirty days; hence appeal U/s 19 & 20 of RTI Act was preferred by respondent-1 before the appellate authority. From the material on record, the informations at S.No.1 & 6 were made available to respondent-1 vide letter dt.26/03/2008 and as regards informations at S.No.2 to 4, it was informed that these are third party's information and in the absence of third party's consent, that cannot be made available and as regards information-S.No.5 it being confidential cannot be made available; and accordingly appeal preferred by respondent-1 came to be dismissed – against which respondent-1 preferred further appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner and the objection raised by the petitioner (RPSC) before the appellate authority was that information desired by respondent-1 under the Rules of Public Service Commission, cannot be made available; however, Chief Information Commissioner taking note of the submissions made, observed in para 6 of order dt.13/06/2008 that what is being demanded by respondent-1 under S.No.2, 3 & 5, there is no legal bar which may deprive respondent-1 in getting the information under RTI Act; however, observed that regarding information at S.No.4, if such information is not being consolidated & maintained, and information of individual applicant has to be examined, that could be denied U/s 7(9) of RTI Act. It was further observed that even if there is any Rule or Regulation of the Public Service Commission not to provide such information, that may not have binding force in view of S.22 of RTI Act having over-riding effect; accordingly the Chief Information Commissioner directed the petitioner (PSC) to make the desired informations available within 21 days vide order dt.13/06/2008.
It is relevant to record that petitioner (PSC) filed instant writ petition on 02/12/2008 after lapse of four months and there was no interim protection granted by the Court, and four years having rolled by after passing of order dt.13/06/2008 still in compliance thereof, the desired informations was not furnished to the respondent-1. It was not expected from the constitutional functionary like petitioner (PSC) to sit over the matter despite the directions to be complied within 21 days while the writ petition was filed after four months and mere filing of the writ petition will not absolve the public authority (PSC) from disobeying orders of RTI authority, unless interim protection being granted by the Court.
Main thrust of Counsel for petitioner is that as regards informations other than S.No.1 & 6 desired by respondent-1 in his application dt. 06/02/2008, petitioner (PSC) was granted exemption from disclosing of such information as provided U/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. Couns
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
