Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
V. Balachandran - Appellant
Versus
The State Information Commissioner Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Teynampet, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 22796 of 2015
Decided on : 25-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Chandrakanthan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Niranjan Rajagopalan, Ambedkar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not require concurrence from the third party for furnishing information by the Public Authority, and public interest in disclosure should outweigh any possible harm to the interests of the third party.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Public Interest - Section 6(1), Section 19(1), Section 19(3), Section 11 - The court examined the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly Section 11, which outlines the procedure for disclosing information supplied by a third party. The court emphasized that the Act does not require concurrence from the third party for furnishing information by the Public Authority, but only contemplates issuance of notice to the third party to place objections, if any. The court highlighted that when public interest in disclosure outweighs any possible harm to the interests of the third party, disclosure should be allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding allotment of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The information was denied by the authorities citing objections from the concerned parties. The petitioner challenged this denial through a Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision-making process of the authorities was flawed as it did not consider the public interest involved in the matter, especially the rule forbidding allotment of more than one house to persons in the same family. The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the denial of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the failure of the authorities to consider the public interest involved in the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Act does not require concurrence from the third party for furnishing information by the Public Authority, but only contemplates issuance of notice to the third party to place objections, if any. The court highlighted that when public interest in disclosure outweighs any possible harm to the interests of the third party, disclosure should be allowed.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was ordered in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records dated 04.06.2015 in Case No. 28249/C/2014, on the file of the First Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to furnish the particulars sought by the Petitioner in his application dated 03.04.2013 from the Third Respondent.)
(through video conference)
Heard Mr. V.Chandrakanthan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Learned Standing Counsel for the First Respondent and Mr. Ambedkar, Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioner had made an application dated 03.04.2013 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the -Act- for short) to the Third Respondent to furnish the copies of the application for allotment together declaration, lease-cum-sale agreement and sale deed in respect of Flat Nos.27/3 and 22/3 TNHB Quarters, 2nd Street, Phase V, Durga Nagar, Tambaram, Sanetorium, Chennai - 600 047, relating to the Fourth and Fifth Respondents respectively. It was informed by the Third Respondent to the Petitioner in the letter dated 27.04.2013 that the concurrence of the Fourth and Fifth Respondents had been sought for furnishing the said information. According to the Petitioner, since there was no response from the Third Respondent, he made an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the Second Respondent, which was replied by an order dated 20.05.2013 stating that since the Fourth and Fifth Respondents have objected for granting copies of the documents relating to their properties, the information sought by the Petitioner could not be furnished. Thereafter, the Petitioner had preferred Second Appeal in Case No. 28249/C/2014 under Section 19(3) of the Act before the First Respondent. In the order dated 04.06.2015, it has been recorded by the First Respondent that notice of hearing sent to the Petitioner had been returned with postal endorsement -party out of station- and the First Respondent expressed the view that inasmuch as the information sought by the Petitioner was third party information for which the Third Respondent had followed the prescribed procedure under Section 11 of the Act, the second appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the First Respondent.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which is a Public Authority, allots the houses that it constructs to persons who do not own any house and as per G.O. (Ms) No. 29, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 29.01.2001 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, it has been specifically required that at the time of making application for allotment, the concerned applicant has to declare that he or his wife or any of his family members do not own any house or plot, and if such declaration submitted by the applicant is found to be false, the allotment made in his favour shall be cancelled immediately. In that backdrop, it is contended that inasmuch as the Fourth and Fifth Respondents are husband and wife, the Petitioner wanted to know from the Third Respondent as to whether separate allotments had been made to them for Flat Nos. 27/3 and 22/3 respectively in TNHB Quarters, 2nd Street, Phase V, Durga Nagar, Tambaram, Sanetorium, Chennai - 600 047, which involves public interest and consequently, the First to Third Respondents could not deny the information sought as third party information. The ruling of this Court in M.Kaliaperumal -vs- Central Information Commissioner (Order dated 18.11.2009 in W.P. No. 16070 of 2009) is cited in support of the claim made. There is substantial force in the aforesaid contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which requires examination.
4.
