2023 (8) TMI 892 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI - Seeking various information regarding third parties (Petitioner) from excise department - who has claimed the benefit of exemption - Seeking list of manufacturers or suppliers of the equipments/machineries of plants before the Central Excise Department - Right to Information Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 15.11.2011 in directing the information in respect to the information so sought for in the application dated 01.09.2011 from Clauses 1 (a) to 1 (x) except Clause 1(g). Now coming to the information as regards Clause 1 (g) of the Application, this Court enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners claimed confidentiality while furnishing the list of manufacturers or suppliers of the equipments/machineries of plants before the Central Excise Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions in that regard. It is also relevant to take note of that there is no pleading to the effect that confidentiality was claimed at the time of furnishing the information pertaining to the list of manufacturers/suppliers of the equipments/machineries of the plants before the Central Excise Department. Taking into account, it is the further opinion of this Court that the information sought for under Clause 1 (g) of the application dated 01.09.2011 would not come within the ambit of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which pertains to Section 19 (4) of the RTI Act in as much as it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reasonable opportunity had to be given to the third party when an appeal is preferred relating to the information of third party. The said submission though at the first blush looks attractive but the same is misconceived taking into account that the petitioners herein did not claim confidentiality to come within the ambit of Section 11 of RTI Act. This Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to order under Right to Information Act, 2005

The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Second Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, upholding the decision of the First Appellate Authority. The case involves the rejection of an application seeking information related to the eligibility status of a company under the Industrial Policy of 1997 and exemptions granted by the Central Excise Authorities.

Details of the judgment:
The respondent filed an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was rejected by the Public Information Officer. The First Appellate Authority directed the respondent to provide the information, which was upheld by the Second Appellate Authority. The petitioners challenged this decision before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioners argued that the authorities did not consider the exceptions under Section 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, which exempt certain information from disclosure. The Court noted that Section 8 (1) provides for exceptions to disclosure obligations, with certain clauses providing absolute exemptions and others qualified exemptions. The exemptions under Section 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (e) are qualified and can be overridden if there is a larger public interest.

The Court also considered Section 11 of the RTI Act, which deals with disclosure of third-party information. It referred to a relevant judgment highlighting what constitutes personal information and the need for protection of such information.

The Court analyzed the information sought in the application and found that most of it pertained to public activity related to industrial policy exemptions. It concluded that there was no issue with disclosing this information except for a specific clause.

Regarding the information under a specific clause of the application, the Court found that there was no claim of confidentiality made by the petitioners. It determined that this information did not fall under the ambit of Section 11 of the RTI Act.

The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented, including a submission related to Section 19 (4) of the RTI Act, as the petitioners did not claim confidentiality under Section 11 of the Act.