9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - WRIT PETITION NOS. 2912 & 3137 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2011 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Sunil Manohar, Deven Chauhan and Ms. Jayashri P. Akolkar for the Petitioner. Sanjay Anant Bhole for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. These Writ Petitions were heard together. Since common arguments were canvassed and common questions are involved, they are disposed of by this judgment. 2. Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. The petitions impugn the orders dated 23-3-2011 passed by the State Information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y which will prevent tampering of registration books by the anti-social elements. It is stated that this 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. The RTI Act, according to the Petitioner, does not give an absolute right to a person to obtain any information and it is, therefore, contended that the Respondent No. 4's attempt to obtain the information must be seen in this light. 5. The Respondent No. 4 was desirous of obtaining a copy of the agreement and made an application in the prescribed format to the Respondent No. 3 on 21-1-2010. Thereafter, there is response to the said application by the Respondent No. 3, namely, Public Information Officer- cum -Deputy Transport Commissioner (Computer) in the office of the Transport Commissioner. The Respondent No. 3 refused to provide the information sought in the application by taking recourse to section 8(1)( d ) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Respondent No. 3 passed on 29-1-2010, the Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India [2005] 1 SCC 679, had issued directives that the registration of motor vehicles should be safety oriented and there should not be any scope for unscrupulous and criminal elements to tamper with registration of the motor vehicles. Mr. Manohar submits that in this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all security features for number plates have to be specified and they are indeed specified. The tender conditions are formulated keeping in mind public interest and the aspects of high security. Mr. Manohar submits that the selection of a single manufacturer for the entire State ensures security. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that multiple manufacturers can brush aside these considerations and confidentiality of public database would be severely compromised. All these submissions have been noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they have been upheld. Mr. Manohar, therefore, submits that this matter cannot be looked at in the ordinary perspective of disclosure of information about a public contract between the State and the Service Provider, but the security considerations are impressed upon the same. By directing the disclosure of information as sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any personal gain or benefit, the information was sought and the information has been rightly directed to be provided. Therefore, the Respondent No. 4 prays for dismissal of the petitions. 11. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, I have perused the petitions and annexures thereto and particularly the impugned orders. It is common ground that the Respondent No. 4 has sought information on five points relating to the driving licence smart cards and the registration certificate smart cards. The last point, on which the information was sought, is in relation to the agreements with private contractor. The Public Information Officer and the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Computerization) informed the Respondent No. 4 that the agreement entered into by the Department with the third parties for providing the driving licence smart cards, optical smart cards and registration book smart cards, cannot be provided as it is governed by section 8(1)( d ) of the RTI Act. This view has been upheld by the Joint Transport Commissioner which is the first Appellate Authority, but reversed by the State Information Commissioner. 12. The reasoning of the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; ( b ) ( j )** ** ** ( d )information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; ( e ) to ( j )** ** ** Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." 13. I am not in agreement with Mr. Manohar that the absence of the consideration of larger public interest in clause ( a ) of sub-section (1) of section 8 is a material and relevant aspect in this matter. This is not a case where clause ( a ) has been relied upon by anybody or could be relied upon in the given facts and circumstances. On point No. 5, the disclosure and the information sought was with regard to execution of any contract with a private service provider for providing the driving licence smart cards, optical smart cards and registration certificate smart cards. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame 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. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the reasons given by the State Information Commissioner are in any way violative of the provisions pressed into service. I am of the opinion that the State Information Commissioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
