-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 2011 Pallet Hotels (I), Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered office at 601, 6th floor, Dr. Oslor Forum, Near St. Andrews Church, P. O. Box No. 31, Vasco da Gama, Goa Represented herein by its Authoritzed representative Group General Manager, Felix Fernandes, major of age, son of Zeferno Fernandes, Residing at Vasco Goa, …... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Director of Urban Development, First Appellate Authority, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Government of Goa, Ground Floor, Collectorate Building, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Public Information Officer/Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, 403802. 3. Shri Babdhagit Nadaf, major of age, No. 9, 3rd Floor, Karma Paes Avenue, F. L. Gomes, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. …... Respondents Registered Addresses Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate with Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent no.1. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mr. E. O. Mendes, Advocate for the Respondent no.3. -2- Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 25 th November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. S. Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent no.1, Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no.2 and Mr. E. O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3. 2. Rule, heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. 3. The short point in controversy to the above Petition is that the impugned Order passed by the Respondent no.1 dated 03.10.2011 was passed without hearing the Petitioner. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, which contemplates that in cases in which information sought is in respect of third parties, such third parties have to be heard before any such Order is passed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents have not disputed the said proposition and have fairly conceded that the Petitioner was not heard before the impugned Order was passed. 5. Without going in to the rival contention on merits as to whether such -3- information sought by the Respondent no.3 can be supplied or not, it would be appropriate that the impugned Order be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the Respondent no.1 to decide the Appeal filed by the Respondent no.3 after hearing of all the concerned parties including the Petitioner in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following : O R D E R (i) The impugned Order dated 03.10.2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Case no. 59/DMA/2011/RTI/1669 is restored to the file of the Respondent no.1. (iii) The Respondent no.1 is directed to decide the said Appeal in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no Order as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*