FIEM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the State Information Commission whereby the Public Information Officer had been directed to furnish the information sought by respondent No. 5. Learned counsel has raised two arguments. The first is that the applicant viz. respondent No. 5 is closely related to respondent No. 2 and it was the respondent No. 2 who had made the offer before the Commission because of their relation. The second argument is that the information sought related to the petitioner and was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act').

(2.) TAKING the second point first, the one fact which becomes clear is that on the date when the case was decided, the representative of the petitioner chose not to appear and voiced his opposition to the disclosure of information. The Commission even on the previous date had prima facie noticed was that there was not much ground in the argument of the representative of the petitioner but had still given him one more opportunity to prepare better. On the adjourned date the representative of the petitioner, as mentioned above, did not appear. Thereafter the Commission chose to consider the matter and held independently that the information sought viz. the details of a raid conducted on the petitioner by the VAT authorities, was in the larger public interest and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) would not come to the aid of the petitioner.

(3.) TO my mind that judgment would also not be strictly applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that in the present case the petitioner never appeared before the State Information Commissioner to oppose the request despite a specific opportunity having been granted to him. In the circumstances, at least for the purpose of the present case the petitioner cannot now be heard to claim that information was wrongly provided to respondent No. 5. As regards the first point, since I have held that the Commission had given independent reasons for granting the information, the fact that there is a close relation ship between respondents No. 2 and 5 would be hardly germane.