welcome to Third Party Information | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	HIGH COURT CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
1	WP (C) 2025/2014 & CM No 4213/2014 (77.29 KB)	08 Oct, 2018	PIO, Commissioner of Police Vs V Choudhary The contention of the petitioner that the information as sought by the respondent was third party information is also unpersuasive. The information as sought by the respondent pertains to unauthorized construction noticed by the police authorities, and in respect of which information had been forwarded to the concerned Municipal Corporation. Such information has neither been provided by any third party nor has been treated as confidential. Undisputedly, the information may relate to third parties inasmuch as it relates to the property of those third parties.
2	WP(C) NO 7845 OF 2013 (265.97 KB)	12 Feb, 2018	PARAS NATH SINGH vs UOI The contention that notings made by a junior officer for use by his superiors is third party information, which requires compliance of sec 11 of the act, is unmerited. Any noting made in the official records of the Govt/public authority is information belonging to the concerned Govt /public authority……….the reasoning that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.
3	W.P.(C) 5588/2015 (224.85 KB)	13 Sep, 2017	M/S SDB INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & ORS Having stated the above, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary for respondent nos.2 and 3 to disclose the passport details; Identity cards and copies of the cheques (which may disclose bank accounts) submitted by the persons applying for conversion of the property. There is no justification for disclosure of such information and, therefore, the disclosure of the same is unwarranted. The decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpandey (supra) is clearly not applicable in the facts of the present case. In that case, the petitioner had sought copies of memos and Show Cause Notice and orders of censure of punishment issued, which were plainly personal information and there was no justification warranting its disclosure. Before concluding, it would be necessary to refer to Section 11 of the Act which was resorted to by the CPIO. Section 11(1) of the Act clearly enjoins the CPIO to inform a third party in cases where any information in possession of the Public Authority relating to a third party, is intended to be disclosed. In such cases the CPIO has to take an informed decision after hearing submissions of the third party. Thus, in the present case, CPIO was required to examine the entire context in which information was sought and then take an informed decision.
4	CWP -2133-2017 (150.67 KB)	06 Feb, 2017	Puneet Kumar vs State Information Commission, Haryana and Ors. Section 11 Third Party Information. The petitioner had filed an application before the State Public Information Officer-cum-District Education Officer, Hisar seeking information pertaining to different public schools in Haryana regarding their affiliation; area and size of the schools in square meter; attested copies of NOC of fire safety certificate for last three years. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the information sought for by the petitioner, is related to the private schools which are neither Government aided institutions nor in receipt of any grant from the Government and are not covered under RTI Act. The petitioner submitted that the said observation regarding private schools being not covered under RTI Act is contrary to the statutory provisions as the private schools are under the supervision of District Education Officer which is a statutory authority as such information sought for by the petitioner should have been provided under the provisions of RTI Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that it is apparently a personal information regarding the third party which is being sought for by the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the State Information Commissioner.
5	Special Civil Application No. 20547 of 2016 (423.57 KB)	13 Jan, 2017	Chandrakant Vrajlal Fichadiya vs State of Gujarat & 2 Ors Section 11 Third Party Information. The petitioner filed RTI application seeking a copy of the map of one Sh. Natwarlal Vitthaldas Buddhadev. The petitioner contended that the plan sanctioned by the Corporation is not provided and therefore, the impugned order is bad and illegal. The respondent denied the information as it was objected by the third party. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat held that it cannot be said that any public interest is involved which requires disclosure of information of a third party. On perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the learned authority has taken into consideration the said aspects and considering the provisions of the Act and Rules, has rightly not entertained the appeal.
6	W.P. (C) 4735/2011 (221.09 KB)	30 Apr, 2015	UOI vs D.S. Meena The order of CIC directing the petitioner to show the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of third party to the respondent was challenged. The Court held that the reasons provided by the respondent are not convincing enough to establish before this court that disclosure of ACR details of the said three persons and the DPC proceedings is important for larger public interest. Merely because the respondent wants to avail such information, does not form a substantial reason so as to why this court should allow disclosure of such information. The impugned order passed by CIC is set aside.
7	LPA No. 498 of 2015 (151.99 KB)	31 Mar, 2015	B.M. Agarwal Versus CIC & Others The income tax returns filed by the brothers of wife were sought by the petitioner. Order of CIC declining the same under Section 8 (1) (j) and Section 11 has been challenged in the Court. The Court held that the appellant may seek summoning of a document from the concerned department in support of his defence and in case, such a prayer is made, the trial court will examine the prayer in accordance with law, but on the said pretext the appellant cannot be supplied income tax return of third party under the RTI Act.
8	Special Civil Application No. 16480 of 2014 (178.08 KB)	14 Nov, 2014	PANKESH MANUBHAI PATEL Versus CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER The petitioner challenged denial of information sought by him, that is, LTC details of all employees in certain grades, from the respondent bank, on the ground that it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The decision of the CPIO was upheld by the CIC – the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat held that it does not see any infirmity in the impugned decision of the Commission.
9	W.P. (C) 903/2013 (186.47 KB)	08 Jul, 2014	THDC India Limited vs R.K. Raturi Section 11(1) Third Party Information. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the CIC whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide photocopies of the DPC proceedings including the comparative grading statement pertaining to the recommended candidates as well as ACRs of the appellant himself for the period mentioned by him in his RTI application. The petitioner contended that the information directed to be released pertaining to other employees of the petitioner is being held by the petitioner in fiduciary capacity and would amount to disclosure of personal information- the petitioner further contended that information sought for pertains to third party and provisions of sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act would be applicable. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that this Court is of the opinion that the finding of public interest warranting disclosure of the said information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the procedure contemplated under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived. In the present case, CIC has directed the petitioner to provide DPC minutes to the respondent without considering the defence of the petitioner under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and without following the procedure specified under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act. No findings has been given by CIC as to whether public interest warranted such a disclosure. The matter is remanded back to CIC for consideration of petitioner’s defences under sections 8(1)(e) and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the CIC is of the view that larger public interest is involved, it shall thereafter follow the third party procedure as prescribed under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act.
10	W.P.(C) 5232/2013 (318.50 KB)	23 Aug, 2013	Inderjeet Singh Vs. Central Public Information Officer, NCDRC & Anr. Section 7- Supply of Information – a perusal of Regulation 22 of Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 leaves no doubt that no third party can inspect the record of any decided petition/revision petition/review petition etc. the validity or otherwise of the said Regulation cannot be questioned in a proceeding under RTI Act. Since no inspection by a third party is permissible under the Regulations, there would be no occasion for supplying the copy of the procedural method, rule, fees etc. for this purpose.
11	WP No. 3650 of 2012 (318.07 KB)	08 Jan, 2013	Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors. Section 11- Third Party Information The petitioner claimed that the school run by the Trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authorities have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- The appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it to respondent No. 5, an ex-employee of the petitioners- the petitioners contended that what could not have been done directly is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal rights of the petitioners are violated. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 to respondent No. 2 to use any of those powers for procuring information from the petitioners cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner has not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioners.
12	W.P No. 3650 of 2012 (318.07 KB)	08 Jan, 2013	Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Otrs. V.S. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors. Section 11 Third Party Information The petitioner claimed that the school run by the trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authority have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- the appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it respondent No 5, an ex-employee is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal right of the petitioner are violated – The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is, misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner have not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order passed without hearing the petitioners is unsustainable.
13	LPA No. 22 of 2012 (239.63 KB)	20 Apr, 2012	R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. Section 11 — Third Party Information The appellant filed RTI application and sought certain information — as per the appellant; there was certain complaints qua corruption against Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member/CESTAT. After examining this complaint, the then President of CESTAT who was former Chief Justice of High Court made certain adverse entries in the ACR of the said Member which pertained to the year 2000-01. According to the appellant, on the basis of the said ACR, Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance opened another file with the subject "follow up action on the integrity in the ACR for the year 2000-01 in respect of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (Tech), CESTAT." Ultimately, this file was closed without taking any proper action. The appellant on this premise wanted inspection of the file as well as the copies of the Note Sheets and correspondence — the CPIO of CESTAT informed the appellant that the file contained analysis of the ACR of the said Member and claimed it to be exempted under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act — the First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the same ground — further appeal before the CIC met the same fate as the CIC also held that ACR grades could be disclosed only to the person to whom it relates except in the exceptional circumstances The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that what is important is that the procedure under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, which is mandatory has to be followed which includes, giving of notice to the concerned officer information whose ACR is sought for. If that officer, in the present case the Ex Member of CESTAT, pleads private defence that defence has to be examined while deciding the issue as to whether the private defence is to prevail or there is an element of overriding public interest which would outweigh the private defence. Since the Single Judge of this Court has already remanded back the matter to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the Appellant could be disclosed, the appellant can always argue this before the CIC.
14	CWP No. 13740 of 2008 (85.24 KB)	19 Apr, 2012	RPSC Vs. Jagdish Narain Pandey Section 11- The Third Party Information The respondent – 1 desired information regarding female candidates (general) seeking disclosure of their names, educational qualification having been called for interview, besides a list of female candidates (General) alongwith their names & educational qualifications having been selected; but at the same time, further information seeking disclosure of such candidates out of afore desired female candidates (General) who were holding Gold medals and qualifications of Ph.D., B.Ed. & Slate – the CPIO of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission denied the information under section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act and also being third party information the Chief Commissioner, Rajasthan, directed the Petitioner (RPSC) to provide relevant information as desired by the respondent no. 1 The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan held that under the provisions of RTI Act, even third party information can also be made available but after due compliance of section 11 of RTI Act. However, in the instant case, since names & address of applicants who were finally selected in the process held by the PSC were not required to be made available and the identity of third party was not to be disclosed, it was not required to comply with section 11 of RTI Act. As regards individual details of such female candidates in general category holding Gold medals and qualification of Ph.D., B.Ed., & SLATE, the authority made it clear that if such information being not consolidated & maintained but has to be made available from the forms of individual applicants, that can certainly be denied in view of section 7(9) of the RTI Act. However, contention advanced by the petitioner about their Regulations which restricts them from making such information available to the private party, it is made clear that in view of section 22 of RTI Act, which has a over-riding effect over such bye-laws framed by the Commission and unless such desired information stands exempted U/s 8, public authorities are under obligation to provide desired information to the person. In the facts of instant case, section 8(1)(d), of which protection has been raised by the petitioner, has no application.
15	LPA No. 900/2010 (234.32 KB)	23 Mar, 2012	Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Chander Sekhar Section 11 - Third party Information The appellant had floated a tender titled “GSM phase-VI” for the installation of 93 million GSM lines in four parts – the respondent sought the copy of complaint report of evaluation of tender on the financial bids received from various bidders. The CPIO of the appellant vide letter dated 30.07.2009 declined the request of the respondent for information on the ground that the information sought was of “commercial confidence” in nature and claiming exemption from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI act – the CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent and observed (i) that the evaluation process stood completed and thus the commercial position of any of the bidders could not be adversely affected by such disclosure (ii) the exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is not available since the information was already in public domain owing to the finalization and completion of the bidding process and evaluation and cannot pose a threat to the competitive position of any of the bidders; (iii) it was in the larger public interest to disclose such information; (iv) that the non-disclosure agreements were valid only for the “Confidentiality period” i.e. till the opening of the bids – the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant impugning the order aforesaid of the CIC. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that in the information of which disclosure is sought relates to or contains information supplied by a third party and which the third party may claim confidential, the third party information procedure laid down in section 11 of the Act is Judge. We are of the opinion that disclosure of such information which would be part of the evaluation process would still require the third party information procedure under section 11 of the RTI Act to be followed. As aforesaid, besides the bid price, there may still be information in the bid and which may have been discussed in the evaluation process, of commercial confidence and containing trade secret or intellectual property of the bidders whose bids were evaluated. The matter is remanded back to the CIC. The CIC shall issue notice to the parties whose bids are evaluated in the evaluation process information qua which is sought by the respondent and decide the request of the respondent after following the procedure under section 11 of the RTI Act.

1

WP (C) 2025/2014 & CM No 4213/2014
(77.29 KB) pdf icon

08 Oct, 2018

PIO, Commissioner of Police Vs V Choudhary

The contention of the petitioner that the information as sought by the respondent was third party information is also unpersuasive. The information as sought by the respondent pertains to unauthorized construction noticed by the police authorities, and in respect of which information had been forwarded to the concerned Municipal Corporation. Such information has neither been provided by any third party nor has been treated as confidential. Undisputedly, the information may relate to third parties inasmuch as it relates to the property of those third parties.

2

WP(C) NO 7845 OF 2013
(265.97 KB) pdf icon

12 Feb, 2018

PARAS NATH SINGH vs UOI

The contention that notings made by a junior officer for use by his superiors is third party information, which requires compliance of sec 11 of the act, is unmerited. Any noting made in the official records of the Govt/public authority is information belonging to the concerned Govt /public authority……….the reasoning that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.

3

W.P.(C) 5588/2015
(224.85 KB) pdf icon

13 Sep, 2017

M/S SDB INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & ORS

Having stated the above, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary for respondent nos.2 and 3 to disclose the passport details; Identity cards and copies of the cheques (which may disclose bank accounts) submitted by the persons applying for conversion of the property. There is no justification for disclosure of such information and, therefore, the disclosure of the same is unwarranted.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpandey (supra) is clearly not applicable in the facts of the present case. In that case, the petitioner had sought copies of memos and Show Cause Notice and orders of censure of punishment issued, which were plainly personal information and there was no justification warranting its disclosure.
Before concluding, it would be necessary to refer to Section 11 of the Act which was resorted to by the CPIO. Section 11(1) of the Act clearly enjoins the CPIO to inform a third party in cases where any information in possession of the Public Authority relating to a third party, is intended to be disclosed. In such cases the CPIO has to take an informed decision after hearing submissions of the third party. Thus, in the present case, CPIO was required to examine the entire context in which information was sought and then take an informed decision.

4

CWP -2133-2017
(150.67 KB) pdf icon

06 Feb, 2017

Puneet Kumar vs State Information Commission, Haryana and Ors.

Section 11 Third Party Information. The petitioner had filed an application before the State Public Information Officer-cum-District Education Officer, Hisar seeking information pertaining to different public schools in Haryana regarding their affiliation; area and size of the schools in square meter; attested copies of NOC of fire safety certificate for last three years. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the information sought for by the petitioner, is related to the private schools which are neither Government aided institutions nor in receipt of any grant from the Government and are not covered under RTI Act. The petitioner submitted that the said observation regarding private schools being not covered under RTI Act is contrary to the statutory provisions as the private schools are under the supervision of District Education Officer which is a statutory authority as such information sought for by the petitioner should have been provided under the provisions of RTI Act.

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that it is apparently a personal information regarding the third party which is being sought for by the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the State Information Commissioner.

5

Special Civil Application No. 20547 of 2016
(423.57 KB) pdf icon

13 Jan, 2017

Chandrakant Vrajlal Fichadiya vs State of Gujarat & 2 Ors

Section 11 Third Party Information. The petitioner filed RTI application seeking a copy of the map of one Sh. Natwarlal Vitthaldas Buddhadev. The petitioner contended that the plan sanctioned by the Corporation is not provided and therefore, the impugned order is bad and illegal. The respondent denied the information as it was objected by the third party.

The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat held that it cannot be said that any public interest is involved which requires disclosure of information of a third party. On perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the learned authority has taken into consideration the said aspects and considering the provisions of the Act and Rules, has rightly not entertained the appeal.

6

W.P. (C) 4735/2011
(221.09 KB) pdf icon

30 Apr, 2015

UOI vs D.S. Meena

The order of CIC directing the petitioner to show the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of third party to the respondent was challenged.

The Court held that the reasons provided by the respondent are not convincing enough to establish before this court that disclosure of ACR details of the said three persons and the DPC proceedings is important for larger public interest. Merely because the respondent wants to avail such information, does not form a substantial reason so as to why this court should allow disclosure of such information. The impugned order passed by CIC is set aside.

7

LPA No. 498 of 2015
(151.99 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2015

B.M. Agarwal Versus CIC & Others

The income tax returns filed by the brothers of wife were sought by the petitioner. Order of CIC declining the same under Section 8 (1) (j) and Section 11 has been challenged in the Court.

The Court held that the appellant may seek summoning of a document from the concerned department in support of his defence and in case, such a prayer is made, the trial court will examine the prayer in accordance with law, but on the said pretext the appellant cannot be supplied income tax return of third party under the RTI Act.

8

Special Civil Application No. 16480 of 2014
(178.08 KB) pdf icon

14 Nov, 2014

PANKESH MANUBHAI PATEL Versus CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

The petitioner challenged denial of information sought by him, that is, LTC details of all employees in certain grades, from the respondent bank, on the ground that it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

The decision of the CPIO was upheld by the CIC – the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat held that it does not see any infirmity in the impugned decision of the Commission.

9

W.P. (C) 903/2013
(186.47 KB) pdf icon

08 Jul, 2014

THDC India Limited vs R.K. Raturi

Section 11(1) Third Party Information. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the CIC whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide photocopies of the DPC proceedings including the comparative grading statement pertaining to the recommended candidates as well as ACRs of the appellant himself for the period mentioned by him in his RTI application. The petitioner contended that the information directed to be released pertaining to other employees of the petitioner is being held by the petitioner in fiduciary capacity and would amount to disclosure of personal information- the petitioner further contended that information sought for pertains to third party and provisions of sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act would be applicable.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that this Court is of the opinion that the finding of public interest warranting disclosure of the said information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the procedure contemplated under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived. In the present case, CIC has directed the petitioner to provide DPC minutes to the respondent without considering the defence of the petitioner under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and without following the procedure specified under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act. No findings has been given by CIC as to whether public interest warranted such a disclosure. The matter is remanded back to CIC for consideration of petitioner’s defences under sections 8(1)(e) and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the CIC is of the view that larger public interest is involved, it shall thereafter follow the third party procedure as prescribed under sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act.

10

W.P.(C) 5232/2013
(318.50 KB) pdf icon

23 Aug, 2013

Inderjeet Singh Vs. Central Public Information Officer, NCDRC & Anr.

Section 7- Supply of Information – a perusal of Regulation 22 of Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 leaves no doubt that no third party can inspect the record of any decided petition/revision petition/review petition etc. the validity or otherwise of the said Regulation cannot be questioned in a proceeding under RTI Act. Since no inspection by a third party is permissible under the Regulations, there would be no occasion for supplying the copy of the procedural method, rule, fees etc. for this purpose.

11

WP No. 3650 of 2012
(318.07 KB) pdf icon

08 Jan, 2013

Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors.

Section 11- Third Party Information
The petitioner claimed that the school run by the Trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authorities have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- The appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it to respondent No. 5, an ex-employee of the petitioners- the petitioners contended that what could not have been done directly is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal rights of the petitioners are violated.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 to respondent No. 2 to use any of those powers for procuring information from the petitioners cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner has not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioners.

12

W.P No. 3650 of 2012
(318.07 KB) pdf icon

08 Jan, 2013

Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Otrs. V.S. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors.

Section 11 Third Party Information

The petitioner claimed that the school run by the trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authority have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- the appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it respondent No 5, an ex-employee is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal right of the petitioner are violated –

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is, misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner have not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order passed without hearing the petitioners is unsustainable.

13

LPA No. 22 of 2012
(239.63 KB) pdf icon

20 Apr, 2012

R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Section 11 — Third Party Information
The appellant filed RTI application and sought certain information — as per the appellant; there was certain complaints qua corruption against Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member/CESTAT. After examining this complaint, the then President of CESTAT who was former Chief Justice of High Court made certain adverse entries in the ACR of the said Member which pertained to the year 2000-01. According to the appellant, on the basis of the said ACR, Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance opened another file with the subject "follow up action on the integrity in the ACR for the year 2000-01 in respect of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (Tech), CESTAT." Ultimately, this file was closed without taking any proper action. The appellant on this premise wanted inspection of the file as well as the copies of the Note Sheets and correspondence — the CPIO of CESTAT informed the appellant that the file contained analysis of the ACR of the said Member and claimed it to be exempted under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act — the First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the same ground — further appeal before the CIC met the same fate as the CIC also held that ACR grades could be disclosed only to the person to whom it relates except in the exceptional circumstances
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that what is important is that the procedure under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, which is mandatory has to be followed which includes, giving of notice to the concerned officer information whose ACR is sought for. If that officer, in the present case the Ex Member of CESTAT, pleads private defence that defence has to be examined while deciding the issue as to whether the private defence is to prevail or there is an element of overriding public interest which would outweigh the private defence. Since the Single Judge of this Court has already remanded back the matter to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the Appellant could be disclosed, the appellant can always argue this before the CIC.

14

CWP No. 13740 of 2008
(85.24 KB) pdf icon

19 Apr, 2012

RPSC Vs. Jagdish Narain Pandey

Section 11- The Third Party Information
The respondent – 1 desired information regarding female candidates (general) seeking disclosure of their names, educational qualification having been called for interview, besides a list of female candidates (General) alongwith their names & educational qualifications having been selected; but at the same time, further information seeking disclosure of such candidates out of afore desired female candidates (General) who were holding Gold medals and qualifications of Ph.D., B.Ed. & Slate – the CPIO of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission denied the information under section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act and also being third party information the Chief Commissioner, Rajasthan, directed the Petitioner (RPSC) to provide relevant information as desired by the respondent no. 1
The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan held that under the provisions of RTI Act, even third party information can also be made available but after due compliance of section 11 of RTI Act. However, in the instant case, since names & address of applicants who were finally selected in the process held by the PSC were not required to be made available and the identity of third party was not to be disclosed, it was not required to comply with section 11 of RTI Act. As regards individual details of such female candidates in general category holding Gold medals and qualification of Ph.D., B.Ed., & SLATE, the authority made it clear that if such information being not consolidated & maintained but has to be made available from the forms of individual applicants, that can certainly be denied in view of section 7(9) of the RTI Act. However, contention advanced by the petitioner about their Regulations which restricts them from making such information available to the private party, it is made clear that in view of section 22 of RTI Act, which has a over-riding effect over such bye-laws framed by the Commission and unless such desired information stands exempted U/s 8, public authorities are under obligation to provide desired information to the person. In the facts of instant case, section 8(1)(d), of which protection has been raised by the petitioner, has no application.

15

LPA No. 900/2010
(234.32 KB) pdf icon

23 Mar, 2012

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Chander Sekhar

Section 11 - Third party Information
The appellant had floated a tender titled “GSM phase-VI” for the installation of 93 million GSM lines in four parts – the respondent sought the copy of complaint report of evaluation of tender on the financial bids received from various bidders. The CPIO of the appellant vide letter dated 30.07.2009 declined the request of the respondent for information on the ground that the information sought was of “commercial confidence” in nature and claiming exemption from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI act – the CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent and observed (i) that the evaluation process stood completed and thus the commercial position of any of the bidders could not be adversely affected by such disclosure (ii) the exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is not available since the information was already in public domain owing to the finalization and completion of the bidding process and evaluation and cannot pose a threat to the competitive position of any of the bidders; (iii) it was in the larger public interest to disclose such information; (iv) that the non-disclosure agreements were valid only for the “Confidentiality period” i.e. till the opening of the bids – the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant impugning the order aforesaid of the CIC.
The Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that in the information of which disclosure is sought relates to or contains information supplied by a third party and which the third party may claim confidential, the third party information procedure laid down in section 11 of the Act is Judge. We are of the opinion that disclosure of such information which would be part of the evaluation process would still require the third party information procedure under section 11 of the RTI Act to be followed. As aforesaid, besides the bid price, there may still be information in the bid and which may have been discussed in the evaluation process, of commercial confidence and containing trade secret or intellectual property of the bidders whose bids were evaluated. The matter is remanded back to the CIC. The CIC shall issue notice to the parties whose bids are evaluated in the evaluation process information qua which is sought by the respondent and decide the request of the respondent after following the procedure under section 11 of the RTI Act.