RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. GUJARAT STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respective parties waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Important issues have been raised for the adjudication by this Court, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, viz. :- (I) Whether the third party is entitled to get, written notice, of request of applicant (who is seeking information), so as :- (i) to allow/permit the third party to treat the information (relating to or supplied by the third party) as confidential, if so far not treated as confidential; and (ii) to oppose the disclosure of such information i. e. information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under s. 11 (1) to be read with S. 7 (7) of the Act, 2005. (II) Whether the third party is entitled to get an opportunity of personal hearing before disclosure of information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under S. 11 (1) to be read with S. 7 (7) of the Act, 2005. (III) Whether Public Information Officer should pass speaking order when he discloses information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party? (IV) What satisfaction must be arrived at prior to the information relating to or supplied by third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party is disclosed? (V) As right of first appeal as well as second appeal is given to third party under Ss. 19 (2) and 19 (3), Whether upon request by third party, Public Information Officer should stay his order, giving information about third party at least, till appeal period is over, as like air or smell, information once disclosed, it will spread over, without there being further restrictions, and even if third party succeeds in first appeal/second appeal, it cannot be gathered back or cannot be ordered to be returned. The aforesaid petitions have been preferred seeking a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31st January, 2007 passed by respondent no. 1 i. e. Gujarat State Information Commission (Annexure 'c' to the memo of the petition) as well as the order dated 9th march, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 i. e. , Labour Commissioner and Appellate authority (Annexure 'f' to the memo of the petition) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005') as well as the communication dated 9th March, 2007 issued by respondent No. 4 i. e. Public Information Officer (Annexure goto the memo of the petition) and also for a writ, order or direction for commanding respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for recalling of information supplied to the original applicant-Rasiklal Mardia and for a direction upon the original applicant-Rasiklal Mardia, not to use such information for any purpose whatsoever and for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondent-authorities from further proceedings with the complaint of the original applicant i. e. Rasiklal Mardia under S. 18 of the Act, 2005 being Complaint No. 541/06-07 and for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ; order or direction commanding respondent nos. 1 to 6 in Special Civil Application no. 17076 of 2007 not entertaining any application or proceeding at the instance of Mr. Rasiklal S. Mardia under the provisions of the Act, 2005, so far as it is pertaining to the petitioner and its group companies.

(2.) SUMMARISED Facts of the case : 2. 1 Several applications (as per arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, there are about 55 applications by now) have been preferred by the original applicant i. e. Rasiklal S. Mardia for getting information about the petitioner and its group companies. One such application is dated 25th July, 2006, which was preferred by the said applicant under S. 6 of the Act, 2005 to respondent No. 3, who transferred the said application to the respondent No. 4 on 29th August, 2006. He also preferred an application to respondent No. 2 (first appellate authority)on 21st August, 2006. Meanwhile, respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 29th August, 2006 to the original applicant that he may contact respondent No. 4 for getting information and his application dated 25th July, 2006 has been transferred to respondent No. 4. Therefore, he preferred an application in the form of complaint under s. 18 of the Act, 2005 to respondent No. 1, which is second appellate authority. Respondent No. 1 (second appellate authority)remanded the case to respondent No. 2, (who is first appellate authority) vide order dated 31st January, 2007, wherein this respondent no. 1 has already conveyed that what ever information demanded is to be given and, therefore, respondent No. 2 has also directed Public Information Officer at jamnagar that whatever information is demanded ought to be given. Thus, order dated 31st January, 2007 was followed scrupulously by respondent No. 2 and, thereafter by respondent No. 1. Order was passed on 9th March, 2007 by respondent No. 2, who is sitting at Ahmedabad and direction was given to Public Information Officer, who is stationed at Jamnagar. Whatever information was sought for by the original applicant was supplied by Public Information officer, Jamnagar (which is at distance approximately 350 kms.) on the very same day i. e. on 9th March, 2007. Thus, order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 31st January, 2007 is under challenge as well as order passed on 9th March, 2007 passed by respondent no. 1, Ahmedabad is also under challenge and information supplied by Public Information Officer, Jamnagar on 9th march, 2007 to the original applicant is also under challenge, which are at Annexures 'c', 'f and 'g' respectively to the memo of the petitions. 2. 2 Informations demanded by the original applicant i. e. Rasiklal Mardia (in Special Civil Application no. 16073 of 2007), are as under :-

(3.) CONTENTIONS advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioners : it is submitted by learned senior counsel mr. Mihir Thakore with Mr. Dhaval Dave for the petitioners that there is commercial rivalry by the original applicant with the petitioner and its group companies and the suits have been filed by him as stated herein-above. There is a reference of the petitioner -company in the plaints of the suits. The applicant is a defaulter and several criminal complaints have been filed against him by Union of India. Therefore, no such application may be entertained by the respondent-authorities, at the instance of Mr. Rasiklal S. Mardia under the provisions of the Act, 2005, so far as it is pertaining to the petitioner and its group companies. No opportunity of making a representation or written notice was given by the respondent-authorities as required under S. 11 (1) of the act, 2005 and no representation was considered by the Public Information Officer as per S. 7 (7) of the Act, 2005. No opportunity of personal hearing was afforded by the respondent-authorities. Therefore, orders passed by respondent-authorities are unilateral/arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that as per S. 11 (1) of the Act, 2005, a written notice ought to be given to the petitioner to make a representation to the Public "information Officer, which was never given. The petitioner is a third party as defined under S. 2 (n) of the Act, 2005 and, therefore, the petitioner was required to be heard by the respondent-authorities before imparting information relating to the petitioner and its group companies. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that no reasons were given by the concerned respondent-authority before supplying the information relating to the petitioner. Totally non-speaking orders have been passed. While passing order, reasons are required, if the information is supplied about the third party, under S. 7 (1) of the Act, 2005. The said order is an appealable order under S. 19 (1) of the Act, 2005. As per S. 11 (2), even third party can prefer an application Public Information Officer is a quasi-judicial authority. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the words under S. 11 (1)". . . . . . . has been treated as confidential by that third party. . . . . . . . . . " means, before imparting the information, a third party can treat the information (sought for by the original applicant)relating to third party or supplied by third party, as confidential. In the facts of the present case, a letter was written by the petitioners dated 18th May, 2007 (Annexure 'a' to civil Application No. 17067 of 2007) that information asked by the original applicant-Rasiklal S. Mardia about the petitioner and its group company is treated as confidential by the third party and request was also made to give an opportunity of being heard, to the petitioner, before disclosure of the information. A reply was given by Public Information Officer, on 30th May, 2007 that the information asked by the original applicant was not pertaining to the petitioner and, therefore, there is no need to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that several applications were given to the concerned respondent-authorities i. e. Principal Secretary, industry and Mines Department as well as to the chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat about the information relating to the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, which was asked by Rasiklal Mardia, with a prayer that no such information should be given to Rasiklal Mardia about the petitioner and its group companies, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as contemplated under S. 11 of the Act, 2005. A detailed list of such applications preferred by the original applicant is given along with Special Civil Application No. 17067 of 2007, especially at Annexure 'i' to the memo of the petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that when arguments were over, the figure has crossed 55 in numbers. Thus, Rasiklal Mardia, because of commercial rivalry has applied under S. 6 of the Act, 2005 for the information relating to the petitioner and its group companies, which cannot be given to the original applicant, in breach of the provisions of the Act, 2005. It is also vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the manner in which respondent No. 1 has decided the matter vide order dated 31st January, 2007 requires to be scrutinised accurately. It appears that without any appeal preferred before second appellate authority, respondent No. 1 remanded the matter to respondent No. 2, who is first appellate authority, with a clear direction in para 4 of the said order to provide information to the original applicant i. e. Rasiklal Mardia, free of charge and within 30 days from the date of order. This direction was given by second appellate authority to respondent no. 2, who is first appellate authority, who in turn, directed Public information Officer at Jamnagar to supply the information, whatever are asked for, by the original applicant. The order was passed by the respondent No. 2 at Ahmedabad on 9th March, 2007 and direction was given to the Public Information Officer at Jamnagar. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the very same day, public Information Officer, Jamnagar, which is at long distance from Ahmedabad who obeyed the order even without reading it and supplied the information to the original applicant i. e. Rasiklal Mardia on the very same day. Thus, method in which the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is such that, it requires a close scrutiny as the said orders are not only in defiance of the provisions of the Act, 2005 but are in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the facts of the present case, none of the authorities i. e. neither respondent No. 1 nor respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 4 have arrived at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweighs harm or injury to the protected interest of third party. Nor a conclusion is arrived at that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. No such satisfaction is arrived at by any of the authorities and, therefore also, all three orders dated 31st January, 2007 passed by respondent No. 1; order dated 9th March, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 and information supplied by respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 9th March, 2007 deserve to be quashed and set aside as they are in gross violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005 and the principles of natural justice. As the information is already supplied in defiance of the provisions of the act, 2005, the same may be ordered to be recalled from the original applicant-Rasiklal mardia or a direction may be given to the original applicant not to make use of said information for any purpose whatsoever.