SANGAM TRANSPORT Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purposes of these proceedings, the parties would be referred to in terms of the array of parties in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45657 of 2014.

(2.) The first petitioner, M/s Sangam Transport is a partnership firm in which the fourth respondent claims to be a partner. The fourth respondent filed an application before the Public Information Officer/Regional Food Marketing Officer on 18 May 2013 in regard to the affairs of a partnership firm in which he claimed to be a partner. Thereafter another application dated 30 September 2013 was filed by the fourth respondent seeking information relating to the registration of the firm in the Food and Civil Supply Department and the work which had been assigned to the firm. M/s Sangam Transport, however filed an application under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (The Act) with a prayer that it had objection to any information relating to it being supplied to a third party. The Public Information Officer, by an order dated 8 November 2013 bearing no.2283, declined to divulge the information sought by the application dated 18 May 2013 for the aforesaid reason. With regard to the application dated 30 September 2013, the Public Information Officer, by an order dated 8 November 2013, bearing no.2282 held that a large part of the information which was sought by the fourth respondent (serial no. 1 to 9 of the application) pertains to a third party, M/s Sangam Transport and hence, the information could not be disclosed. In respect of the remaining item (serial no.10), the fourth respondent was directed to obtain information from the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, where the firm was registered.

(3.) The fourth respondent did not challenge the aforesaid orders of the Public Information Officer, both dated 8 November 2013, but independently moved an application before the State Information Commission constituted under the Act on 8 July 2013. Both before the Public Information Officer and before the State Information Commission, the petitioners were not impleaded. The State Information Commission, by an order dated 31 December 2013, directed the Regional Food Controller to supply the information to the fourth respondent. Subsequently, on 31 January 2014, 6 March 2014 and 22 May 2014, further orders were passed by the State Information Commission. The Regional Food Controller was penalised by imposition of a penalty of Rs.25,000/- for non-disclosure of information under Section 20 (1) of the Act with a consequential direction to recover the amount from his salary in instalments.