2011 (7) TMI 1000 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI - Exemption from disclosure of information - the petitioner company functions as a service provider to the Government of Maharashtra. - Information sought under RTI refused on the ground that the contract is confidential in nature. The project has been undertaken by the Petitioner, but attempts are made to exploit the Petitioner for personal gains by various unscrupulous elements. - held that - The information sought is not in relation to the individual Smart Cards or registration certificates or details thereof. The information sought is in relation to the decision taken and the policy framed for providing the Smart Cards and if the means to provide the same are by inducting private service providers, then, only details of the agreements executed with such service providers and the copies thereof have been sought. In my view, there was nothing in the information sought by the Respondent No. 4, by which commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property is being disclosed, leave alone the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party or it would lead to incitement of an offence. Merely because the details of the service providers are to be disclosed and the copies of the agreements would be provided, that does not mean that their interests are harmed or their competitive position is affected. It has been rightly pointed out by the Respondent No. 4 that some other Transport Commissioners have been providing such details for the respective territories and States, therefore, there was no need for the Transport Commissionerate for Maharashtra to withhold this information. - Directed to provide the information under RTI.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confidentiality of the contract under the RTI Act.
2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
3. Public interest versus confidentiality.
4. Comparison with other jurisdictions and previous judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confidentiality of the contract under the RTI Act:
The petitions challenged the orders dated 23-3-2011 by the State Information Commissioner, Konkan Region, under the RTI Act. The Petitioner, a service provider for the Government of Maharashtra, argued that the contract for Smart Card based Registration Certificates is confidential. The Petitioner contended that the RTI Act does not grant an absolute right to obtain any information, emphasizing that the contract's confidentiality is crucial to prevent exploitation by unscrupulous elements.

2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act:
The Respondent No. 3 (Public Information Officer) and the first Appellate Authority denied the information request under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that includes commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, unless larger public interest warrants it. The State Information Commissioner, however, directed the disclosure, arguing that public interest in scrutinizing the agreements outweighs the confidentiality concerns. The Petitioner argued that the disclosure would harm competitive positions and jeopardize security, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India, which emphasized the importance of security in vehicle registration processes.

3. Public interest versus confidentiality:
The State Information Commissioner concluded that the agreements' disclosure would enable public scrutiny and is desirable in larger public interest. The Petitioner argued that the information sought does not serve public interest and could compromise security. The Respondent No. 4 countered that the disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability, highlighting that similar information was disclosed by the Transport Commissioner, Delhi.

4. Comparison with other jurisdictions and previous judgments:
The Petitioner cited the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's observation that the document is confidential. However, the court noted that the RTI Act's purpose is distinct from the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing transparency and accountability. The court also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision on safety and security measures, noting that the information sought does not pertain to individual Smart Cards but to the agreements with service providers.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the State Information Commissioner's order, stating that the disclosure aligns with the RTI Act's objective of promoting transparency and accountability. The court found no error in law or perversity in the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of the agreements. The petitions were dismissed, and the request to continue ad-interim orders was rejected.