The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and the balancing of the right to information with the protection of commercial confidence. The judgment emphasizes the accountability of state-owned organizations to the public and the need for transparency and accountability in their functioning.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the 1st respondent impugned order in S.A.No.11163/ Re-Enquiry/A/2015 dated 01.11.2017 to quash the same and consequentially direct the 3rd respondent to provide the information sought for under the RTI Act by the petitioner.)

The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order of rejection, rejecting the application submitted by the writ petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [in short, ''RTI Act''] to provide information with reference to Question No.2 raised in the application submitted by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate by Profession and served as Electoral Secretary of Coimbatore Bar Association. The petitioner is involved in various public activities and also a Public Information activist. The petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent / TASMAC to provide certain informations.

3. The petitioner in his application sought for six informations with reference to the activities of the 2nd respondent / TASMAC. In respect of five questions, informations were already provided to the writ petitioner admittedly. Regarding the query that the details of purchase from the respective Distillery and Breweries, the 2nd respondent has not furnished the details.

4. The said information was denied to the petitioner under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Against the rejection order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Information Commission. But, State Information Commission concurred with the Public Information Officer and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the informations sought for by the petitioner would not fall under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The 2nd respondent denied information to question No.2 on the ground that the information is a commercial confidence, which is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The State Information Commission without even looking into the information, rejected the appeal, which is in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The informations sought for regarding the purchase of Distillery and Breweries from various factories would not fall under the definition of commercial confidence and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:

(a) In the case of Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Vs. Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Represented by its Registrar passed in W.P.No.3784 of 2008 dated 05.01.2010, wherein the Hon''ble High Court of Madras held as follows:

“15. It is not clear as to how Section 8(1)(a) is attracted to the present case. There is no economic interest of the State involved in the inspection report of the Corporation. Similarly, reliance placed upon Section 8(1)(i) is also not attracted in the present case, as information sought for was not relating to Cabinet minutes and also Secretaries and the other officers. Even there, the first proviso to the said sub-section enables those information can be divulged once a final decision is taken.

16. Therefore, the only relevant question is whether the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) is available to the petitioner. The said exemption relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets itself had not made absolute embargo. In those cases, if the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure, then such an information should be furnished. Therefore, the petitioner ELCOT cannot deny in furnishing the information about their survey of a particular place for acquiring those lands. If the petitioner ELCOT had to purchase the land either by dire