The judgment emphasizes the public's right to information and the obligation of public authorities to provide information unless it falls under specific exemptions.

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is a registered company wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. They had come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent, dated 1. 2008. By the said order, the petitioner company was directed to supply an information asked for by the second respondent as the information sought for did not come under the exempted category provided under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act). The writ petition was admitted on 12. 2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted by this court.

3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was an incorporated company in the year 1977 under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company was entrusted with the task of rendering assistance to entrepreneurs setting up Information Technology and ITES organisations. They claimed to have developed so far nine IT parks in Tamil Nadu.

4. The second respondent herein sent a requisition to the petitioner by a letter, dated 24.09.2007, stating that the officials of the petitioner company had visited the water bodies, Kaiveli and Uppankazhi lands at Thiruporur and nine other villages in Chengalpattu Taluk. They were examining the suitability of those lands for setting up IT and other industries. Therefore, he wanted to have the field inspection report for his information.

5. The second respondent was informed by the Public Information Officer that the field inspection report is of business secret and if disclosed, it would affect the economic interest of the petitioner corporation and the Government of Tamil Nadu and therefore, such information cannot be divulged. The second respondent, by a letter, dated 110. 2007 complained to the first respondent about the attitude of the petitioner Corporation (ELCOT). In the complaint, the second respondent had stated that he is working in a nearby salt plant for over 33 years. The livelihood of 1500 families in that area depends on the salt production. There are over 1000 fishermen families who are also dependent for their livelihood in those lands. The Governments attempt to make those lands into concrete jungles will result in their villages being submerged during monsoon time. Since the official of the petitioner Elcot had visited their places, they are very much interested in knowing the contents of their field inspection report.

6. The petitioner Elcot was summoned by the Commission. The Managing Director of the petitioner company appeared and informed that whenever officials of Elcot have gone and set up IT parks, the cost of lands shoots up by 10 to 30 times. In one such place at Madurai South Taluk, the cost of one acre land was earlier less than Rs.5 lakhs. But today, in the vicinity of the IT park set up therein, the land costs have gone up by Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.1.5 Crores per acre. Similar was their experience in the other places. The moment they make a pilot survey, the real estate brokers enhance the price of the lands. The RTI Act should not be used for unlawfully enriching some one by extracting the business secret from a Government company.

7. The Commission should ascertain the credentials of the applicant about the public interest. Seeking such an information under the Act should not serve any private interest. However, they stated that they have no problem in presenting the two page office note put up by the General Manager (Land), Elcot after the inspection of the site. If the Commission so directs, they are willing to hand over a copy of the two pages document. However, they insisted that their business secrets should not be allowed to be extracted through the mechanism of the RTI Act.

8. The Commission after hearing both parties by the impugned order, dated 212. 2007 informed that the information asked for is not coming under any exempted category under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the petitioner corporation ELCOT was directed to