MARIO PIRES Vs. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vivekananda, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the Learned Government Advocate appearing for R-1 to 3. The R-4 though was served with the notice of this Writ Petition but remained unrepresented.

(2.) BRIEF facts required for disposal of the writ petition are stated as under: The 4th respondent made an application to respondents-1 to 3 requesting them to furnish him information relating to the service conditions and assets and liability of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner on coming to know the same has filed a representation requesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give him an opportunity of hearing before taking a decision on the application of R-4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ignoring his representation issued an endorsement to the 4th respondent informing him to obtain information by depositing necessary fee. The petitioner aggrieved by the said endorsement has preferred this Writ Petition challenging that it is in contravention of Sec. 11 of the Act: Sec.11 of the Act reads as under: Section 11: Third party information (1) where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer of State Information Officer, as the case may be shall within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information.

(3.) IN this case also the 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities of the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. If the petitioner appears before R-1 to R-3 and submit that the information sought by R-4 is a confidential one and he does not want the same to be disclosed, the R-1 to R-4 should consider the request of R-4 in the light of the decision of this court in W.P. No. 10663/2006.