2015 (9) TMI 1190 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI - seeking information related to third party - information sought by the erstwhile partner - seeking information relating to the registration of the firm in the Food and Civil Supply Department and the work which had been assigned to the firm. - Held that - In the present case, the fourth respondent sought extensive disclosure in regard to the business of the partnership firm. There is a serious element of contest between the petitioners and the fourth respondent as to whether the fourth respondent continues to be a partner. Whereas the fourth respondent asserts that he continues to be a partner, the contention of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent has retired from the partnership firm. We clarify that we are not expressing any view on the merits as admittedly one suit which has been filed by the fourth respondent is pending. The facts which have come on the record are sufficient to hold that before directing the disclosure of information, the State Information Commission ought to have issued notice to the petitioners and heard them on their objection to the disclosure of information. The proceedings before the Public Information Officer and before the State Information Commission have to be conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice and where a disclosure of this nature is sought in regard to the business of the partnership firm, it was but necessary that the petitioners should have been heard before any final order was passed. However, we clarify that the issue as to whether information which has been sought by the fourth respondent should or should not be disclosed in view of the provisions of the Act is kept open. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated upon. - Decided in favor of third party (petitioner)

Summary

Issues:
1. Disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 without impleading the concerned parties.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice in proceedings before the State Information Commission.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the issue of disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 without impleading the concerned parties. The petitioner, a partnership firm, objected to the disclosure of information sought by the fourth respondent, who claimed to be a partner in the firm. The Public Information Officer initially declined to disclose the information, citing the objection raised by the firm. However, the State Information Commission later directed the disclosure without involving the petitioners. The High Court held that the Commission erred in not issuing notice to the petitioners and providing them with an opportunity to be heard before deciding on the disclosure. It emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice in such proceedings to ensure fairness and proper consideration of objections raised by the concerned parties.

2. Another crucial aspect addressed in the judgment is the compliance with principles of natural justice in proceedings before the State Information Commission. The Court highlighted the necessity of affording all parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case and be heard before making decisions, especially in cases involving sensitive information or disputes. It noted the ongoing legal disputes between the parties, indicating a complex legal background that required careful consideration. The Court set aside the orders of the State Information Commission and directed it to issue notice to the petitioners, allowing them a fair chance to present their objections before any final decision on the disclosure of information is made. This ruling underscores the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in administrative proceedings under the Right to Information Act.

In conclusion, the judgment in this case emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in matters concerning the disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It underscores the need for all concerned parties to be given a fair opportunity to present their case and have their objections considered before any decision is made. The Court's ruling highlights the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings to ensure transparency, fairness, and proper resolution of disputes.