2011 (4) TMI 1054 - HC - Indian Laws

Writ petition RTI - application filed by the petitioner was first rejected by the ASPIO, by means of single line impugned order and his complaint/appeal was also dismissed by the SIC, by virtue of impugned order - main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the SIC, was that since the information sought by the petitioner is a personal information and no public interest is involved, so, it cannot be supplied under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act - petitioner submitted that since the information sought cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature, so, the same cannot also be denied to the petitioner as well, as the information sought by the petitioner is factual in nature, therefore, the respondents cannot claim the exemption, as provided under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, next submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the information relatable to a third party cannot be supplied to the petitioner, is again not tenable. The word Third-Party has been defined under Section 2(n) of the Act and even SIC is competent to direct ASPIO to provide the information relating to third party as envisaged under Section 11 of the Act Held that - it was obligatory on the part of ASPIO to provide the factual information sought by the petitioner, writ petition is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of Right to Information (RTI) application by Assistant State Public Information Officer (ASPIO).
2. Dismissal of appeal/complaint by State Information Commission, Punjab (SIC).
3. Challenge of impugned orders through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about the owners/partners of a specific business entity. The ASPIO rejected the application with a single-line order. The petitioner's appeal/complaint was also dismissed by the SIC. The High Court noted that the information sought was factual and did not fall under the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The court emphasized the Act's purpose of ensuring transparency and access to information.

2. The SIC had held that the information sought was personal and not in the public interest, justifying the rejection under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the information requested was not of commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property. The court highlighted that the Act aims to provide information accessible to citizens and that the petitioner was entitled to the factual information sought.

3. The High Court analyzed various sections of the RTI Act, including definitions of "information" and "right to information." It emphasized that the Act mandates public authorities to maintain records accessible to citizens. The court clarified that the exemption clause under Section 8(1)(d) applies to specific categories of information, which did not encompass the factual details requested by the petitioner. The court directed the ASPIO to provide the information within a specified timeframe, setting aside the impugned orders.

4. The judgment underscored that denying information without valid reasons would defeat the Act's purpose. The court rejected the argument that information related to a third party could not be supplied, citing provisions allowing disclosure as per the Act. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to the factual information sought and directing the ASPIO to comply with the order promptly.