For the purposes of these proceedings, the parties would be referred to in terms of the array of parties in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45657 of 2014.
The first petitioner, M/s Sangam Transport is a partnership firm in which the fourth respondent claims to be a partner. The fourth respondent filed an application before the Public Information Officer/Regional Food Marketing Officer on 18 May 2013 in regard to the affairs of a partnership firm in which he claimed to be a partner. Thereafter another application dated 30 September 2013 was filed by the fourth respondent seeking information relating to the registration of the firm in the Food and Civil Supply Department and the work which had been assigned to the firm. M/s Sangam Transport, however filed an application under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 20051 with a prayer that it had objection to any information relating to it being supplied to a third party. The Public Information Officer, by an order dated 8 November 2013 bearing no.2283, declined to divulge the information sought by the application dated 18 May 2013 for the aforesaid reason. With regard to the application dated 30 September 2013, the Public Information Officer, by an order dated 8 November 2013, bearing no.2282 held that a large part of the information which was sought by the fourth respondent (serial no. 1 to 9 of the application) pertains to a third party, M/s Sangam Transport and hence, the information could not be disclosed. In respect of the remaining item (serial no.10), the fourth respondent was directed to obtain information from the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, where the firm was registered.
The fourth respondent did not challenge the aforesaid orders of the Public Information Officer, both dated 8 November 2013, but independently moved an application before the State Information Commission constituted under the Act on 8 July 2013. Both before the Public Information Officer and before the State Information Commission, the petitioners were not impleaded. The State Information Commission, by an order dated 31 December 2013, directed the Regional Food Controller to supply the information to the fourth respondent. Subsequently, on 31 January 2014, 6 March 2014 and 22 May 2014, further orders were passed by the State Information Commission. The Regional Food Controller was penalised by imposition of a penalty of Rs.25,000/- for non-disclosure of information under Section 20 (1) of the Act with a consequential direction to recover the amount from his salary in instalments.
The fourth respondent has filed a writ petition before this Court (Writ Petition No.38933 of 2014) for challenging the order of the State Information Commission dated 22 May 2014 insofar as the Commission had disposed of the proceedings without supplying the information which was sought by the fourth respondent. In addition, the fourth respondent has sought a mandamus from this Court for the disclosure of all the information, which was sought in his application dated 30 September 2013. The petitioners were not initially impleaded as parties to the proceedings. By an order of this Court dated 5 August 2014, the petitioners were directed to be impleaded.
The petitioners have filed a counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.38933 of 2014 filed by the fourth respondent and have filed a substantive writ petition (Writ Petition No.45657 of 2014) for impugning the orders passed by the State Information Commission on the ground that (i) the State Information Commission has committed a manifest illegality in directing the disclosure of information without impleading the petitioners, who are a third party within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act in respect of whom a disclosure was sought; and (ii) despite the orders of the Public Information Officer rejecting the application of the fourth respondent on 8 November 2013, which was never challenged, the State Information Commission has directly ordered a disclosure of information.
On the other hand, it has been urged that the fourth respondent cannot be regarded as being alien to the partnership firm and the disclosure sought is not in respect of third party information since he continues to be a partner. In this regard, reliance has been placed on an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad on 25 July 2013 (Annexure No.11 to Writ Petition No.38933 of 2014).
Before we deal with the legal submissions, it must, at the outset, be noted that it has emerged in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners to the writ petition filed by the fourth respondent that there are several suits and proceedings, which were instituted inter se between the parties. The fourth respondent has filed a Suit, bearing No.1330 of 2012 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in which, it has been stated that on 17 December 2012, an order was passed by the Civil Judge issuing notice on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The fourth respondent filed another suit, being Original Suit No.108 of 2013 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaushambi, who granted an ex parte injunction on 22 April 2013. In that suit, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since it was not being decided by the trial Court, a writ petition was filed in this Court, being Writ Petition No.1413 of 2013, which was disposed of on 16 May 2013 by directing the trial Judge to dispose of the objection. The fourth respondent withdrew the suit which he had instituted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad on 27 May 2013. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. was rejected by the trial Judge at Kaushambi on 30 May 2013 and the ad-interim injunction was confirmed against which a First Appeal From Order (First Appeal From Order No.2013 of 2013) was filed before this Court, which was allowed and the proceedings were remanded back on 23 July 2013. A civil revision was filed before this Court, being Civil Revision No.319 of 2013 against the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The revision was dismissed on a statement of the fourth respondent that he would withdraw the suit instituted before the trial Court at Kaushambi. The fourth respondent withdrew the subsequent suit which was filed before the trial Court at Kaushambi on 20 August 2013. Thereafter the fourth respondent has instituted another suit, being Suit No.1228 of 2013 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad. Institution of these proceedings is not in dispute. We have adverted to this aspect because it is clear from the record that there are multifarious proceedings, which were instituted before various Courts and which in fact had led up to proceedings before this Court on several occasions.
In this background, we would have to assess the submission that the State Information Commission has erred in directing the disclosure of information without impleadment of the petitioners. Section 11 of the Act provides that where the State Public Information Officer or the Central Public Information Officer intends to disclose any information or record which relates to a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party, a written notice would have to be issued to the third party. Similarly, Section 19 (4) of the Act provides that if a decision of the Central or the State Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, a reasonable opportunity of being heard has to be afforded to that third party.
In the present case, the fourth respondent sought extensive disclosure in regard to the business of the partnership firm. There is a serious element of contest between the petitioners and the fourth respondent as to whether the fourth respondent continues to be a partner. Whereas the fourth respondent asserts that he continues to be a partner, the contention of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent has retired from the partnership firm. We clarify that we are not expressing any view on the merits as admittedly one suit which has been filed by the fourth respondent is pending.
Be that as it may, the facts which have come on the record are sufficient to hold that before directing the disclosure of information, the State Information Commission ought to have issued notice to the petitioners and heard them on their objection to the disclosure of information. The proceedings before the Public Information Officer and before the State Information Commission have to be conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice and where a disclosure of this nature is sought in regard to the business of the partnership firm, it was but necessary that the petitioners should have been heard before any final order was passed. If the petitioners were heard, they would have been in a position to point out to the State Information Commission that orders had already been passed by the Public Information Officer on the earlier applications of the fourth respondent on 8 November 2013.
For these reasons, we allow Writ Petition No.45657 of 2014 and set aside the orders passed by the State Information Commission on 31 December 2013, 31 January 2014 and 6 March 2014. We direct that the State Information Commission shall issue notice to the petitioners and give them a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding the application or applications, as the case may be, preferred by the fourth respondent. Writ Petition No.38933 of 2014 shall have to be dismissed in view of the setting aside of the orders passed by the State Information Commission. However, we clarify that the issue as to whether information which has been sought by the fourth respondent should or should not be disclosed in view of the provisions of the Act is kept open. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated upon.
Accordingly, Writ Petition No.45657 of 2014 is allowed and Writ Petition No.38933 of 2014 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.8.2014 RKK/-