‘ SHIGH COURTOF CHHAT‘TISGAR‘HIBILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 284 6f 2010 PETIITIONER ' south Ea‘stern “(tentral ' Ranway, Through its Divisional Railway Manager, Bilaspur Division, South Eastern Central Railway, Head x Quarter, Bilaspur (G.G.) ‘ ‘ Versus RESPONDENTS ‘1 Central Information Commtssuon ' “through Its Registrar Club Bhawan Near Dak Khana Old JNU _ _ premises New Delhi 67 2 Sri Jaspal Singh Sethi Partner M/s' - J B Construction Co Tikrapara Bilaspur (C G ) ‘ WRI1l PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFITHE CONSTITUTION OF . § t INDIA , __ . Appearance Mr P S Koshy, Advocate forthe petitioner ORAL ORDER _ ; (21.01 2010) SUNILIKUMAR SINHA J. _V (1) Heard on admissmn (2) Petitioner South Eastern Central Railway (S EC R) Bilaspur - has filed this petitioner challenging the legality, validiy & propriety of the order dated 215‘ December 2009 passed by the Central Informationr ‘CommISSion (C l C ) in a second appeal filed by respondent No 2 under Right to Information Act 2005 ' / (3) The facts briefly stated are as under— y ‘ Respondent No 2 filed an application before the petitioner on 22 1 2009 (Annexure Pl6) under Right to Information Act seeking 3" linformations The said application was With regard to tender No- ‘IW/A/T/58/2008 2009 The said tender was already opened on 6 10 2008 It is stated at bar that M/s J B Construction Company of iwhlch respondent No 2 was a partner has also partlcupated In the 2 w’é s tr o t w h b nrma f ) t ner n o ded 1 T c ed as ure It ppears h rst n \s suppd e I bu u h sen ra cd a r o nforan t t son co rman sht b rndt a t b bu he easo o n acc r n o hose ha h en fra he resent ls ye h le g te a o . e e esdn fie fe nfm u t t p e n appal ‘ , for th Aplate u llat ut d a n h I l foo e ”Dcism ‘ en ftr P u t n a alo c h e he r r 0 e c g, h Co ' " _ reportto te mmission by 28 1 2010 6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of’ Mr PS Koshy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the i (4) petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner was not bound to give information No 2 & 3 to respondent No 2 as they would be covered under .Clause (d) & (h) of sub section (1) of Section 8 of The Right to Information Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2005) ‘ t ' ,(5). Section 8 of Act 2005 provides for exemption from disclosure of ’_ certain information Clause (d) & (h) of sub section (1) of Section 8 of the I I Act reads as under - d e e () information including commerCIal confidenc trad ,W.P;1C! No. 284 of2010 aid ende prcess bu It as no awarded work Te Pullc Ifotion Oficer (P l O of he petltlo furished infrmation at 8 2 2009 he opy of the inf rmation is fil Annex- .V P/7 a tat f informatio T he by th P O t ', abot te cod infomtion it was ontende by the P I O tht i 'they wee not bound t give that imtio o he repdent The I send infotio oug y espoen N02 appers o e aot t rn fr ot epting the tende of J B Construction ‘V Compay, n w belf te respondent N02 was sekig : inomtion T pond No 2 had ao prad for copy of te hf relatin to h foresaid tender This information was als not ltgivn to th rponet Being dissatisd With the aorsaid ‘ ioration spplied o he resondent No2 h fled a e bee e pel Athority The Appee Ahority dismisse the ppeal ad up-eld the deci5ion of the PO Thereafter :tespondent No2 fed the said second appeal before the C l C 'fThe C l C allowed the appeal Vide the impugned order and made i ithe llwmg dcismn - ‘ 5. Ae hearing both Sides the Commis3ion directs the ' IO to prowde complete information as soght by he Appellat in his RTI appliction ng With certified copies of douments sougt fre of cost T infomation should each the Appellant by 21 1201 and the Appellant is directd to submit a compliane ’ V7 W.P.(C) N0. 284 of 2010 secret or mtellectual property, the disclosure of whrch would harm the competrtrve posrtlon of a third party, I unless the competent authority is satisfied that Iarger p public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. (h) information, investigation which or apprehension would impede or the prosecutiOn process :of of , offenders. (6) )lt is pertinent to note that the Work for which Company of respondent No 2 has also submitted its tender as finalized on 6 10 2008 and the work was already awarded to the successful bidder and the present application for Information was filed by respondent N02 on 22 1 2009 ie much after awarding of the work Therefore on account of time factor there was no question of information as such relating to commerCIal confidence trade secret or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive posmon of a third party in this case as nothing remained secret or confidential after awarding the subject tender to a party much prior to the information sought LikeWise there is no question that the information sought by respondent No 2 was I likely to impede the process of investigation or apprehensmn or prosecution of offenders as nothing could be brought on record to show all this The arguments advance by Mr Koshy, therefore cannot be ; ' 1; _ sustained. (7) ln view of the above, i do not find any merit in this petition; The : l: petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. l Sdl- i l SUNE KUMAR smHA . l l Judge l vatti ‘