MADAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) C. W. J. C. No. 16700 of 2012 was filed by one Sunita Devi, who is the information seeker and has been arrayed as Respondent No. 5 in this Memo of Appeal. The writ application was allowed by a Learned Single Judge and a direction was issued upon the Public Information Officer of the Rural Works Department of Jehanabad to supply information, sought under Right to Information Act. The present appellant happens to be the contractar, who had been awarded contract for construction of a rural road under what is known as Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (PMGSY). He had filed the appeal, since he does not want such information sought by the private-respondent to be given, approached the Division Bench by filing L. P. A. No. 1783 of 2012. The Division Bench remanded the matter back for fresh consideration before the Learned Single Judge on the technical ground that the present appellant was a necessary party, since the information demanded may have a fall out upon his right and interest, therefore, he needs to be heard.

(3.) That is how the second round of adjudication has come to be made by the Learned Single Judge in his order, dtd. 9/12/2013, who seems to have reached the same conclusion as the previous Learned Single Judge. He has opined that the information, which was sought for by the private-respondent or the petitioner of the writ application was information, which was in the public domain and the same does not come under the category of exemption, contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.