Total immunity is not available to any third party under Section 8(1)(d) of Right to Information Act.

The petitioner is a registered firm involving in quarrying of beach mineral in the coastal areas of Tirunelveli and he has been in the business for several years.

.2. The 4th respondent herein invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, [Central Act, 22/2005] (hereinafter called as "RTI Act") sought for certain informations regarding the petitioners business. The precise information that was sought for from the third respondent was the details regarding the lease granted in favour of M/s. V.V.Mineral and M/s. Beach Mineral Co.Ltd., for the past 10 years and also the transport permits obtained by these two companies during that period.

3. It must be stated here that the documents sought for were Government records i.e. in respect of lease, and the Government is one of the party to these documents. The prospecting of any mineral is not a right of any individual and he only gets a licence from the Government, who is the absolute authority to grant permission for prospecting these minerals. Therefore, when these details were sought for, the third respondent instead of furnishing those documents sought for the opinion of the petitioner as to whether those documents can be furnished to the 4th respondent.

4. The petitioner by a letter dated 2. 2007 made a counter accusation against the 4th respondent stating that he is a fraud and a criminal and further being a business competitor, these documents need not be furnished to him. The petitioner also relied upon Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act stating that there was no obligation to provide to any citizen such a document. But in the said letter, it was stated that they have no objection in granting those documents for the period upto the year 1999-2000.

5. On receipt of the said letter, the third respondent being the Assistant Principal Information Officer (APIO) passed an order dated 30.4.2007 rejecting the request of the 4th respondent by placing reliance upon Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. However, no reason is recorded for denial of the said documents except stating that the writ petitioner had objected to the same.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent filed an appeal to the first respondent being the appellate authority under the RTI Act. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 6. 2007. In that order, it was stated that the appeal petition was scrutinised in terms of the Act and the order passed by the third respondent was not in accordance with the Act. Therefore, the third respondent was directed to furnish the information sought for by the 4th respondent. As against the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

.7. Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the appellate authority is vitiated on three grounds viz., (i) the claim of the petitioner that the document shall not be furnished is based upon the protection given to his client under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act; (ii) if the appellate authority wants to order disclosure, under Section 11(3) r/w 19(4) of the Act, a notice must be given to the third party and therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity; (iii) further, the 4th respondent has no right to seek for the documents because he is a business competitor and a person of not good conduct and character.

8. Therefore, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the said Act. Section 8(1) (d) reads as follows:

"8. Exemption from disclosure of information-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

.(a) .. omitted ..

.(b) .. omitted ..

.(c) .. omitted ..

(d)information 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 disclosur