SKIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the legality of the order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Konkan Region, on 2/6/2010 in Appeal No.KR-122 of 2009 filed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act for short). By the said order, respondent nos.2 and 3 have been directed to provide the copies of following documents to respondent no.4, who was the applicant under the Act:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Section 8(1)(d) of the Act and submitted that three of the documents directed to be disclosed by the impugned order fall in the category of "commercial confidence" or "trade secrets" and, therefore, these three documents ought not to be covered by the impugned order i.e. (i) MOU dated 13/11/2008, (ii) MOU dated 12/4/2004 and (iii) Definitive Agreement and Shareholders Agreement between CIDCO, SPV and Preferred Bidder Company. We are not impressed by these submissions. It is well known that CIDCO is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra and, therefore, a public body. If it has become a partner in a joint venture with a private company, it is a business transaction and it is subject to public scrutiny. The State Information Commissioner, while dealing with these objections relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand (DB) in the case of State of Jharkhand and anr. vs. Navin Kumar Sinha and anr. (AIR 2008 Jharkhand 19). While dealing with the protection sought under 8(1)(d) of the Act, Jharkhand High Court stated as under:-