Writ Petition No. 863 of 2012. Case: Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Nagpur Vs State Information Commission, Nagpur. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 863 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: R. P. Jog, I/b A. C. Dharmadhikari, Advs. and For Respondents: A. B. Patil, Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. Shamal Kadu, Advs. |
| Judges | Z. A. Haq, J. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act (22 of 2005) - Sections 11(1), 19(4) |
| Citation | AIR 2015 BOM 38 |
| Judgement Date | November 14, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
1. Heard Ms. R.P. Jog, advocate holding for Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, the learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.B. Patil, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, Ms Tajwar Khan, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Shamal Kadu, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 4.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petition takes exception to the order passed by the State Information Commission directing the Public Information Officer to provide the information sought by the respondent No. 4 regarding Item Nos. 4 and 5 stated in his application. According to the petitioner, the information sought by the respondent No. 4 and ordered to be provided, is concerned with the petitioner and as per the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, (for short "Act of 2005") the Commission could not have directed the Public Information Officer to provide the information without giving notice and without granting hearing to the petitioner.
4. The respondent No. 4 sought information as per his application dated 31st January, 2011 from the Public Information Officer. On receipt of the application, the Public Information Officer issued the communication dated 5th February, 2011 to the petitioner seeking its say as to why the information sought by the respondent No. 4 as per Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the application should not be provided to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 23rd February, 2011 and opposed the supplying of the information to the respondent No. 4. The Public Information Officer by the communication dated 4th March, 2011 informed the respondent No. 4 that the information sought by him vide Item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the application cannot be provided in view of the provisions of Section 11(3) and Section 8(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Act of 2005. The respondent No. 4 being aggrieved in the matter filed appeal before the State Commission which is allowed by the impugned order.
5. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the information sought by the respondent No. 4 relates to the petitioner and it is confidential and cannot be provided to the respondent No. 4. It is submitted that the Section 19(4) of the Act of 2005 casts an obligation on the Commission to grant opportunity of hearing to the party with which the information is related. It is submitted that the Commission has neither given any notice nor has granted hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is illegal having been passed in contravention of the mandate of Section 19(4) of the Act of 2005. In support of her submissions, the learned advocate has relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at 2007 (3) Bom CR 134: (AIR 2007 Bom 121),
(ii) SKIL Infrastructure Private Limited and Anr. v. State Information Commissioner and Ors., reported at 2011 (Supp) Bom CR 835: (2010 (3) AIR Bom R 522) and
(iii) R.K. Jain v. Union of India and Anr., reported at 2013(6) SCALE 49: (2013 (3) AIR Bom R 1110).
6. Shri Kadu, the learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial