Shri Khaim Singh Chaudhary S/O ... vs The State Information Officer Cum ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5085 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:24048]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15598/2019

Shri Khaim Singh Chaudhary S/o Kistur Ram, Aged About 61

Years, R/o C-101, Rajeev Nagar, Outside Of Teesari Pol,

Mahamandir Jodhpur Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State Information Officer Cum Chief Manager, Rajasthan

State Road Transport Corporation Jodhpur Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

20/09/2023

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing

the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Rajasthan State

Information Commission, Jhalana Link Road O.T.S. Circle Jawahar

Lal Neharu Marg Jaipur Rajasthan in Second Appeal No.5807/2018

whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed

and also the order dated 29.01.2018 in First Appeal No.367/2018

by the Appellate Authority whereby the petitioner prayed to direct

the Respondent Public Information Officer to provide him the

information as sought in the application dated 20.11.2017 was

dismissed.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first

appeal & second appeal of the petitioner have been dismissed on

the ground that the information being sought by the petitioner is

[2023:RJ-JP:24048] (2 of 4) [CW-15598/2019]

covered under the definition of third party information and same

could not be given to him. Counsel further submits that if the

information in regard to Narsingh Choudhary be provided to the

petitioner, he will not misuse the same and no prejudice will be

caused to him. Counsel further submits that the disclosure of the

information in regard to Narsingh Choudhary is not connected with

the public interest or activity.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the order

passed in the first appeal filed before the Appellate Authority and

the Information Commission, so also the application submitted by

the petitioner for seeking information.

4. A bare perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner

for seeking information speaks that the informations, which are

being sought by the petitioner, are related to one Narsingh Ram

and therefore, the same are third party information and which

cannot be supplied to any other person without the consent of that

concerned person. Section 11 of the Right to Information Act,

2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') clearly bars the disclosure of the

third party information. Section 11 of the Act of 2005 is quoted as

under:-

"11. Third party information.--(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer

[2023:RJ-JP:24048] (3 of 4) [CW-15598/2019]

or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, tinder sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision."

5. The Appellate Authority and the State Information

Commissioner rightly observed that the third party information

cannot be given to the petitioner. This Court finds no illegality in

the impugned orders and no interference can be made in the writ

jurisdiction and therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JP:24048] (4 of 4) [CW-15598/2019]

6. Since the main petition has been dismissed, all other

pending application/s, if any, also stands dismissed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

ARTI SHARMA /731

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)