Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order of the State Information Commission, Nagpur Bench, which directed the Public Information Officer to provide certain information sought by respondent no.4, Balwant Anantram Kuhite, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information pertained to the petitioner-company, which was a third party. The petitioner contended that the Commission violated Section 19(4) of the RTI Act by not giving notice or hearing to the petitioner before passing the order. The respondent no.4 had applied for information on 31 January 2011. The Public Information Officer sought the petitioner's views, and the petitioner objected on grounds of confidentiality under Sections 8(1)(d) and 11 of the Act. The PIO then refused to disclose the information. Respondent no.4 appealed to the State Information Commission, which allowed the appeal without hearing the petitioner. The High Court examined Section 19(4), which requires the Commission to give notice of the appeal to the third party and provide an opportunity of being heard. The Court found that the Commission had not complied with this mandatory requirement, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commission for fresh consideration after giving notice and hearing to the petitioner. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Third Party Information - Section 19(4) of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Natural Justice - The State Information Commission directed disclosure of information relating to the petitioner-company without issuing notice or granting hearing to the petitioner, who was a third party. The High Court held that Section 19(4) mandates that the Commission shall give notice of the appeal to the third party and grant an opportunity of being heard. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the order. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
B) Right to Information - Confidential Information - Sections 8(1)(d), 11 of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Third Party Objection - The petitioner had opposed disclosure on grounds that the information was confidential and exempt under Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) and Section 11 (third party information). The Commission's order was set aside for non-compliance with Section 19(4). (Paras 4, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Information Commission could direct the Public Information Officer to provide information relating to a third party without giving notice and hearing to that third party as required under Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the State Information Commission, and remanded the matter to the Commission for fresh consideration after giving notice and hearing to the petitioner in accordance with Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 19(4) imposes mandatory duty on Information Commission to give notice and hearing to third party before directing disclosure of information related to that third party
- Violation of principles of natural justice renders order void
- Third party has right to oppose disclosure on grounds of confidentiality under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 11 of RTI Act
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (11) 85
WRIT PETITION NO.863/2012
Ms R.P. Jog I/b Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari for petitioner; Shri A.B. Patil for respondent no.1; Ms Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for respondents 2 and 3; Shri Shamal Kadu for respondent no.4
Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Ltd.
State Information Commission, Nagpur Bench; First Appellate Officer as well as Deputy Secretary (Industries); Public Information Officer and Under Secretary (Industries – 8); Balwant s/o Anantram Kuhite
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of State Information Commission directing disclosure of information relating to petitioner-company under RTI Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Commission's order on ground of violation of Section 19(4) and principles of natural justice.
Filing Reason
The State Information Commission allowed the appeal of respondent no.4 and directed the Public Information Officer to provide information sought by respondent no.4 without giving notice or hearing to the petitioner, who was a third party.
Previous Decisions
The Public Information Officer had refused to disclose the information citing Sections 8(1)(d) and 11 of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Officer's decision is not mentioned. The State Information Commission allowed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the State Information Commission violated Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by not giving notice and hearing to the petitioner before directing disclosure of information relating to the petitioner.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the information sought was confidential and related to the petitioner, and Section 19(4) mandates the Commission to give notice and opportunity of hearing to the third party before passing any order. The Commission failed to do so.
Respondent no.4 sought the information and supported the Commission's order. The other respondents did not make specific submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 imposes a mandatory duty on the Information Commission to give notice of the appeal to the third party and grant an opportunity of being heard before directing disclosure of information relating to that third party. Failure to comply with this requirement violates principles of natural justice and renders the order void.
Judgment Excerpts
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, the Commission could not have directed the Public Information Officer to provide the information without giving notice and without granting hearing to the petitioner.
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.
Procedural History
Respondent no.4 filed RTI application on 31.01.2011. PIO sought petitioner's views on 05.02.2011. Petitioner objected on 23.02.2011. PIO refused disclosure on 04.03.2011 citing Sections 8(1)(d) and 11. Respondent no.4 appealed to State Information Commission, which allowed the appeal by impugned order. Petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 19(4), Section 8(1)(d), Section 11, Section 8(1)(A), Section 8(1)(D), Section 8(1)(E)
