JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2- Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner, order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Respondent No.3- First Appellate Officer/ Deputy State Tax Commissioner and the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Ch. Sambhajinagar.

3. The case in brief of the Petitioner is that on 13.02.2023 he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with Respondent No.2- Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner and sought information in respect of submissions of GST from the financial year 2008 to 2023 of six different industries from Tq. Udgir, Dist Latur. Those are M/s. Vyankateshwara Mahila Audyogik Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Udgir, M/s. Aniket Trading Company, Udgir, M/s. Mayureshwar Trading Company, Udgir, M/s. New Prasad Products and Agencies, Udgir, M/s. Kalyani Trading, Udgir and M/s. Prasad Industries, Udgir.

4. In pursuance of the application the Information Officer issued notice to the concerned Industries seeking response on the application. The concerned Industries responded with objection to provide information to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the application filed by the Petitioner was rejected. The counsel for the Petitioner in this regard submits that the Information Officer ought not to have issued notices to the concerned Industries and that the information ought to have been provided to him without issuing notice to the

Respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Officer/ Deputy State Tax Commissioner. The Petitioner preferred separate appeals. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeals for the reason that the firms has denied consent to provide information to a third party and confirmed the order passed by the Respondent No.2- Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 the State Information Commissioner dismissed the second appeal filed by the Petitioner upholding the orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the present petition is filed to challenge the aforesaid orders.

5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the six firms filed GST before the Respondent No.2 and that the information is not a personal information of the individuals and the Petitioner was only seeking the GST returns filed. The documents are public documents and that the Respondent No.2 was not required to take consent from the concerned firms for providing the information.

6. It is also submitted that all six firms are working under the Maharashtra State Government and obtained tenders from the State Government by manipulating documents and by not submitting the GST they had committed huge fraud of the public money. The Petitioner in order to

substantiate the grievance needs the information which is denied illegally. He submits that the impugned orders are illegal and deserve to be quashed.

7. The learned counsel submits that the GST returns are public documents and not a secret information that is not to be disclosed. It is also not a third party information given under Section 11 of the RTI Act. In the instant case the information sought is not protected by law or cause harm to the public at large and therefore the information sought by the Petitioner is a public document and needs to be provided.

8. Considering the submission, the first issue that needs to be considered is whether the respondent no.2 erred in issuing notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The said issue is answered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Sup