2010 (1) TMI 620 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI Bona fide applicant not required to verified Enquiry regarding details of applicant and reason for seeking information not required - no obligation to make an enquiry regarding the personal details of an applicant and the reason for their seeking information Exemption Economic interest of state - whether the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) available to the petitioner - petitioner cannot deny in furnishing the information about their survey of a particular place for acquiring lands - citizen, who solely survives on the existence of the said land, if apprehensive about the land being taken away by some other authority, entitled to know whether those lands are to be acquired by such authority so that, they can legitimately object to the acquisition of their lands on grounds available to them under law - no gainsaying that the disclosure of the field inspection report will result in cost escalation Plea on disclosure to rise land cost, not acceptable as acquiring authority bound to pay market value Petitioner against order directing disclosure of information, dismissed

Issues:
Challenge to order under Right to Information Act, 2005 - Exemption under Section 8 - Disclosure of information by a Government company.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Government-owned company, challenged an order directing them to supply information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), which was admitted by the court with an interim stay.
2. The petitioner company, established in 1977, was tasked with aiding IT and ITES organizations and claimed to have developed nine IT parks in Tamil Nadu.
3. The second respondent sought a field inspection report from the petitioner regarding lands for potential IT and other industries, which the petitioner initially refused to disclose citing business secrecy and economic interests.
4. The petitioner argued that disclosing the information would harm the economic interests of the State, relying on exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), and 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.
5. The Commission, however, directed the petitioner to furnish the information, leading to the challenge in the present writ petition.

Analysis (Continued):
6. The petitioner contended that the Commission should have verified the authenticity of the complainant under Section 18 of the RTI Act, but the court clarified that no such obligation exists under Section 6(2) of the Act.
7. The court emphasized that the petitioner, being a public authority under the RTI Act, had an obligation to provide information unless exempted under Sections 8(1)(a), (d), and (i).
8. It was found that the exemptions under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(i) were not applicable to the case, leaving Section 8(1)(d) as the relevant exemption concerning commercial confidence and trade secrets.
9. The court ruled that if larger public interest warranted disclosure, the petitioner could not deny furnishing information about their survey of lands, especially when acquisition notifications are public records.
10. The court dismissed the petitioner's concerns about potential land cost speculation, highlighting that landowners are entitled to market value compensation, and disclosure of the field inspection report would not unduly impact the petitioner's operations.
11. Citing a previous judgment, the court held that if information sought is not exempted under Section 8, the public authority must disclose it, ultimately dismissing the writ petition as misconceived and lacking merit.

← Previous Next →