Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed against an order of the Goa State Information Commission dated 14.06.2010. The first petition was filed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) challenging the Commission's order under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which directed disclosure of information that the RBI considered confidential under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. The second petition was filed by the Public Information Officer (PIO) / Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who was also aggrieved by the same order. The core issue was that the Commission passed the order without hearing the RBI, which was the authority claiming confidentiality over the information. The court noted that the RBI was not given any notice or opportunity to present its case before the Commission. The High Court held that the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Goa State Information Commission for fresh consideration, directing that the RBI be given a proper hearing. The court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disclosure claim. The petitions were allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Right to Information Act - Section 18 - Power of Information Commission - Natural Justice - The Commission cannot pass an order directing disclosure of information claimed confidential under Section 8(1)(a) without hearing the party claiming confidentiality. The order was set aside as it violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 2-4)
B) Right to Information Act - Section 8(1)(a) - Confidentiality - Third Party Rights - Information held confidential by a public authority cannot be directed to be disclosed without giving that authority an opportunity to be heard. The RBI was a necessary party and its right to object was ignored. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Goa State Information Commission could pass an order under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 directing disclosure of information claimed confidential by the Reserve Bank of India without affording a hearing to the RBI.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 14.06.2010 of the Goa State Information Commission is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commission for fresh consideration after giving a hearing to the RBI. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(a)
- Section 18
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Confidentiality
- Third Party Rights
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 28
Writ Petition No. 132 of 2011 with Writ Petition No. 307 of 2011
Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar for petitioner in WP 132/2011; Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for petitioner in WP 307/2011; Respondent no.1 present in person
Reserve Bank of India (in WP 132/2011); Mr. D. S. Morajkar, PIO/Dy. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (in WP 307/2011)
Shri Rui Ferreira, The Public Information Officer & Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, The Chief Information Commissioner (in WP 132/2011); Rui Ferreira, The Goa State Chief Information Commissioner (in WP 307/2011)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging an order of the Goa State Information Commission directing disclosure of information claimed confidential by the RBI.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by the Goa State Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
Filing Reason
The order was passed without hearing the RBI, which claimed the information was confidential under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Previous Decisions
The Goa State Information Commission passed the order on 14.06.2010 directing disclosure of information.
Issues
Whether the Information Commission could pass an order under Section 18 of the RTI Act directing disclosure of information claimed confidential without hearing the party claiming confidentiality.
Submissions/Arguments
The RBI argued that the order was passed without giving it an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
The respondent Rui Ferreira appeared in person but no specific arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
An order directing disclosure of information claimed confidential under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act cannot be passed without affording a hearing to the authority claiming confidentiality, as it violates the principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The order has been passed without hearing the Reserve Bank of India, which according to the petitioner, is the authority which claims that the information is confidential under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act.
The order is, therefore, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The Goa State Information Commission passed an order on 14.06.2010 under Section 18 of the RTI Act directing disclosure of information. The RBI filed Writ Petition No. 132 of 2011 challenging the order. The PIO filed Writ Petition No. 307 of 2011. Both petitions were heard together and disposed of by this judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: 8(1)(a), 18
