THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.28752 of 2009 22.3.2010 Between: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, represented by its Public Information Officer (under RTI Act 2005) …Petitioner and The A.P. Information Commissioner (under RTI Act 2005) and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.28752 of 2009 ORDER: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board is the petitioner. They are aggrieved by the order of first respondent as confirmed by the Chief Information Commissioner directing the Housing Board to furnish the information sought by third respondent. The short background facts of the case are as follows. Third respondent is father of Dr.Kalyani Prasad (hereafter, allottee), who was allotted a flat in Sanskruthi Township Project (Singapore Township). As the allottees were indulging and launching adverse propaganda regarding quality and price of the flats, petitioner cancelled the allotment and refunded money. Third respondent on behalf of his daughter filed C.D.No.9 of 2005 before the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District. By an order dated 20.4.2007, District Forum disposed of the same directing the Housing Board to pay interest at 9% per annum. Third respondent then filed F.A.No.682 of 2007 before State Consumer Redressal Commission. Petitioner also filed F.A.No.1384 of 2007. These were disposed of on 30.4.2008 directing the Housing Board to register similar HIG flat to the allottee. The petitioner then preferred revision petition before National Consumer Redressal Commission, which is pending. Third respondent made an application on 18.8.2008 to the Executing Engineer-cum-Information Officer of Housing Board requesting for copies of applications for allotment made by 67 persons. By an order dated 15.9.2008, the Public Information Officer rejected the application under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, namely, the Chief Engineer-cum-Appellate Authority under RTI Act. The said authority passed orders on 03.10.2008 and directed the petitioner to furnish available information, which will not affect the interest of the Housing Board. When the third respondent addressed a letter on 17.10.2008 requesting a positive decision, by an order dated 23.10.2008 second rejected the appeal. Third respondent then filed appeal before the first respondent. The same being Appeal No.8963/SIC-ASR/2008 was disposed of on 15.6.2009 directing the Public Information Officer of Housing Board to furnish the information requested by the third respondent within 15 days. Petitioner then sought a review before the Chief Information Commissioner, who by an order dated 17.11.2009 in Review Application No.6576/ASR/2009 dismissed the review petition. This Court admitted the matter on 30.12.2009 and directed status quo. When third respondent appearing as party in person mentioned before this Court, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “specially mentioned case”. Therefore the matter is coming up today under the said caption and is being disposed of, after hearing the counsel for petitioner and the party in person, who filed counter affidavit denying various writ averments. The counsel for Housing Board relies on Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act to justify denial of information sought by third respondent. These two clauses read as under. 8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen. — (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is an exception to Section 3 of RTI Act, which confers on all citizens the right to information. It is also an exception to Section 7 of RTI Act, which requires the Public Information Officer of a Public Authority to provide information requested by a citizen. As the right to information flows from the fundamental right to speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the exception must receive strict interpretation. The public authority can refuse to disclose the information, which is in nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property. The information in the nature of these would certainly harm “the competitive position of a third party” and, therefore, it can be refused. If public interest warrants, even such information can also be furnished. By no stretch of imagination information sought by third respondent (copies of applications for allotment and letters of allotment) can be called as “commercial confidence information”. It may be noticed that Housing Board follows a transparent method in allotting flats and houses constructed by them. The allotments are made public in the newspapers as and when a lottery is conducted along with the names of allottees. Therefore the contention of Housing Board that allotment letters form “commercial confidence information” must be rejected. Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is yet another exception to Sections 3 and 7 of RTI Act. The application made by a person for allotment and allotment letter given to him/her can never be treated as “personal information” nor furnishing of such application would amount to invasion of privacy to individual. Whenever an issue arises whether information sought falls within Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, it should be tested with reference to the proviso thereto. According to the proviso, if the information sought cannot be denied to a Parliament or a State Legislature, the same cannot fall within the category as contemplated in Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. It is nobody’s case that the Housing Board will refuse applications and allotment letters even if the State Legislature summons them. The first respondent as well as Chief Information Commissioner have considered the matter in the light of the law and the same does not warrant any interference. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) March 22, 2010. YS