2010 (8) TMI 792 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to information - decline to disclose information - Held that - The petitioner has sought disclosure of answer sheets of some of the constables which comes within the purview that the disclosure of the same would harm the competitive position of the third party interest. Thus, no illegality or irregularity found in declining to disclose information i.e. supply of answer sheets of the constables to the petitioner. In the case on hand, no consent of the third party was sought before declining the disclosure of the above stated information. On bare perusal of Section 11 of the Act, 2005 makes it clear that seeking consent of the third party would arise only in the event the Public Information Officer is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. In the instant case, the Public Information Officer including the respondent No. 1 State Information Commission has not expressed its satisfaction in favour of disclosure on account of larger public interest. Thus, provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 2005 would not be applicable. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of State Information Commission regarding disclosure of answer sheets under Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought answer sheets of Constables from a promotion examination, denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, 2005. Petitioner argued that the provision did not apply, as answer sheets were not commercial secrets. Respondent contended that disclosure could harm third-party interests under Section 8(1)(d), (e), and (j). The court noted that Section 8 exempts disclosure if it harms competitive position, which applied to the case. The petitioner's claim was dismissed as no illegality was found in denying the information.

Analysis:
The petitioner further argued that Section 11 allowed disclosure with third-party consent, which was not sought in this case. The court explained that consent was required only if larger public interest warranted disclosure, which was not established here. Therefore, Section 11 did not apply. The court found no merit in the case and dismissed the petition without costs.