9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me 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 - 3784 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2010 - K. Chandru, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vijayan for M/s. King and Patridge, for the Petitioner. Shri C.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for M/s. G.R. Associates and Ms. R. Gowri, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on report is of business secret and if disclosed, it would affect the economic interest of the petitioner corporation and the Government of Tamil Nadu and therefore, such information cannot be divulged. The second respondent, by a letter, dated 12-10-2007 complained to the first respondent about the attitude of the petitioner Corporation (ELCOT). In the complaint, the second respondent had stated that he is working in a nearby salt plant for over 33 years. The livelihood of 1500 families in that area depends on the salt production. There are over 1000 fishermen families who are also dependent for their livelihood in those lands. The Government s attempt to make those lands into concrete jungles will result in their villages being submerged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after hearing both parties by the impugned order, dated 27-12-2007 informed that the information asked for is not coming under any exempted category under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the petitioner corporation ELCOT was directed to furnish such information. It is this order, the petitioner ELCOT has come forward to challenge in the present writ petition. 9. The stand taken by the petitioner was that disclosure of information will prejudicially affect the economic interest of the State and is saved by Section 8(1)(a). They also placed reliance upon Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(i) of RTI Act, which reads as follows : 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the applicant seeking an information need not be verified. Section 6(2) of the RTI Act reads as follows : 6(2). An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. 12. This view was reiterated by this Court vide its judgment in V.V. Mineral v. The Director of Geology and Mining and others reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 394. Therefore, the Commission is under no obligation to make an enquiry regarding the personal details of an applicant and the reason for their seeking information. Under Section 3 of the Act, all citizens shall have a right to information subject to the provisions of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o to the said sub-section enables those information can be divulged once a final decision is taken. 16 Therefore, the only relevant question is whether the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) is available to the petitioner. The said exemption relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets itself had not made absolute embargo. In those cases, if the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure, then such an information should be furnished. Therefore, the petitioner ELCOT cannot deny in furnishing the information about their survey of a particular place for acquiring those lands. If the petitioner ELCOT had to purchase the land either by direct negotiations, failing which to invoke the provisions of the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary to Government, Public (Special-A) Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and Others reported in 2009 (5) CTC 828 has held that if the information sought for is not covered by the exemption provided under Section 8, then the public authority is bound to disclose the information sought for by any citizen. 19. Therefore, the attempt to challenge the decision of the Commission and the impugned order is misconceived. The petitioner themselves have offered before the Commission that they are willing to provide the two page note put up by its General Manager (Land), ELCOT after inspecting the site. 20. In the light of the above, the grounds raised by the petitioner are misconceived and lacks in merit. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
