2007 (8) TMI 730 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Information Commissioner's order.
2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Locus standi of the respondent to request information.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Information Commissioner's Order:
The appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenges the judgment and order dated 9.4.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 1662 of 2007, where the learned Single Judge upheld the Information Commissioner's decision, deeming it legal, valid, and justified.

2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The core issue was whether the information sought by the respondent falls under the exemption provided by Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court held that the information requested, which included documents submitted by bidders and the note sheet regarding the change in tender conditions, does not constitute "commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property" that would harm the competitive position of a third party. The court emphasized that transparency in government dealings is paramount and that the public has a right to know the basis on which decisions are made, especially after the tender process is completed and the contract is awarded.

3. Locus Standi of the Respondent to Request Information:
The appellant argued that the respondent had no locus standi to request the information as he was neither a tenderer nor a participant in the bid. The court rejected this argument, stating that under Section 6 of the Act, any person can request information without needing to demonstrate a direct interest in the matter. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, which supports the public's right to know about public transactions.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The intervener (successful bidder) contended that they were not given notice by the State Public Information Officer, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 11 of the Act. The court acknowledged this but noted that the State Information Officer had refused to disclose the document, thus favoring the third party. The court also provided the intervener with an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings, thereby addressing any potential violation of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming that the information sought does not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment underscores the importance of transparency and the public's right to access information regarding government decisions.