Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 793
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Beach Mineral Sands Co., Pvt., Ltd., Tirunelveli & Another – Appellant
Versus
The Central Information Commission, Represented by its Information Commissioner, New Delhi & Another – Respondents
W.P. (MD). Nos. 9785 & 9897 of 2012 & MP(MD). No. 2 of 2012
Decided on : 19-07-2022
For the Appellant :R. Murali, M. Sureshkumar, D. Srinivasaraghavan, V. Sanjeevi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, V. Malaiyendran, Standing Counsel, R2, N. Dilipkumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act before disclosing information relating to a third party, and the need to consider the submissions of the third party before deciding on the disclosure of information.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Information Disclosure - Section 8(1)(d) - The court considered the interpretation of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act and the requirement of notice under Section 11 of the Act. The court found that the disclosure of information relating to the commercial transaction of the writ petitioner company with the information provider would affect the commercial interest of the petitioner company. The court held that the first respondent's order directing the disclosure of information without hearing the writ petitioners was in violation of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and passing of orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the writ petitioners and the second respondent (Information seeker).
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged an order passed by the Central Information Commission directing the Indian Rare Earth Limited to furnish certain information connected with the writ petitioner Companies and other Companies. The petitioners contended that the second respondent, claiming to be the President of the Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries, is a business rival to the petitioners and sought information that would affect the business of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent's order directing the disclosure of information without hearing the writ petitioners was in violation of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and passing of orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the writ petitioners and the second respondent (Information seeker).
Issues: The main issue was whether the disclosure of information relating to the commercial transaction of the writ petitioner company with the information provider would affect the commercial interest of the petitioner company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent's order directing the disclosure of information without hearing the writ petitioners was in violation of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, which mandates the competent authority to issue notice to the third party and consider their submissions before deciding on the disclosure of information.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and passing of orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the writ petitioners and the second respondent (Information seeker).
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in W.P(MD).No.9785 of 2012: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2012/001483/19457 dated 04.07.2012 and quash the same.
In W.P(MD).No.9897 of 2012 : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the proceedings of the first respondent made in Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2012/001483/19457 dated 04.07.2012 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.)
1. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission under which the Indian Rare Earth Limited was directed to furnish certain information connected with the writ petitioner Companies and other Companies.
2. According to the writ petitioners, they are involved in mining of garnet and ilmenite by obtaining license from the Central and State Governments and after approval from various departments of the Government including the Atomic Mineral Department. The petitioners had further contended that the second respondent herein (Information seeker) claiming to be the President of the Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries is a business rival to the petitioners. The petitioners and the second respondent are involved in mining operations of minerals owned by both the companies. The second respondent has filed various litigations against the petitioners herein and also against the similarly placed mining lease holders. According to the petitioners, the sole intention of the second respondent is to give trouble to similar business man so that his business would develop.
3. They further contended that a similar attempt to seek information was made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and the same was rejected by the first respondent herein by an order dated 31.12.2008 by relying upon Section 8(1)(d) of Right to Information Act.
4. The petitioners had further contended that the second respondent seems to have filed an application under RTI Act on 19.12.2011 before the Public Information Officer of Indian Rare Earth Limited asking for certain particulars in respect of six companies which are situated in Tuticorin and Tirunelveli District and which are involved in mining, ilmenite and other minerals.
5. The second respondent had sought for details of year wise, mineral wise and quantity supplied made by Indian Rare Earth Ltd., to the six companies. The Public Information Officer and the Appellate authority have rejected the said request, relying upon Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act. Thereafter, the second respondent has filed a second appeal before the first respondent. On 10.05.2012, the said first respondent after issuing notice to the Public Information Officer of Indian Rare Earth Limited, had proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the authorities to furnish information as requested by the second respondent. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petitions by two companies out of six companies for which the information was sought for.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended as follows:
(i).Though the second respondent claims to be a President of an Association, in his individual capacity he is carrying on mineral operations. The second respondent in his individual capacity is having mineral license for carrying out operations. Hence, the said individual is clearly a competitive firm vis-a-vis Companies about which the second respondent is now seeking information.
(ii). The second respondent had originally made an attempt for seeking information. The said request was rejected by the Central Information Commission by its order dated 31.12.2008. Hence, the second attempt should not have been answered in favour of the second respondent.
(iii). The information sought for by the second respondent is relating to the year wise, mineral wise and quant
