Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 1190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 so .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... application under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 20051 with a prayer that it had objection to any information relating to it being supplied to a third party. The Public Information Officer, by an order dated 8 November 2013 bearing no.2283, declined to divulge the information sought by the application dated 18 May 2013 for the aforesaid reason. With regard to the application dated 30 September 2013, the Public Information Officer, by an order dated 8 November 2013, bearing no.2282 held that a large part of the information which was sought by the fourth respondent (serial no. 1 to 9 of the application) pertains to a third party, M/s Sangam Transport and hence, the information could not be disclosed. In respect of the remaining .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which was sought in his application dated 30 September 2013. The petitioners were not initially impleaded as parties to the proceedings. By an order of this Court dated 5 August 2014, the petitioners were directed to be impleaded. The petitioners have filed a counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.38933 of 2014 filed by the fourth respondent and have filed a substantive writ petition (Writ Petition No.45657 of 2014) for impugning the orders passed by the State Information Commission on the ground that (i) the State Information Commission has committed a manifest illegality in directing the disclosure of information without impleading the petitioners, who are a third party within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act in respect of whom a d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since it was not being decided by the trial Court, a writ petition was filed in this Court, being Writ Petition No.1413 of 2013, which was disposed of on 16 May 2013 by directing the trial Judge to dispose of the objection. The fourth respondent withdrew the suit which he had instituted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad on 27 May 2013. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. was rejected by the trial Judge at Kaushambi on 30 May 2013 and the ad-interim injunction was confirmed against which a First Appeal From Order (First Appeal From Order No.2013 of 2013) was filed before this Court, which was allowed and the proceedings were reman .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fficer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, a reasonable opportunity of being heard has to be afforded to that third party. 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates