C. Ashiokarathnam v. Manager

The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents in furnishing information with regard to the qualifications of the applicants for H.P.Gas Distributorship at Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. The respondents issued a notification inviting applications from interested candidates for grant of H.P.Gas Distributorship at Nandikotkur. The petitioner was one such applicant. The first respondent-Corporation published a marks list disclosing the list of empanelled candidates on 21.02.2008. Apparently, the petitioner was not in the empanelled list. Alleging illegalities in the recording of marks for empanelment and seeking information as to the particulars furnished by 7 candidates, who had applied along with the petitioner pursuant to the notification, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.02.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”), to the first respondent.

In the representation, the petitioner sought copies of the godown sites documents, showroom sites and financial capacity documents of the 7 candidates, who had been awarded higher marks as per the empanelled list. The second respondent by a letter, dated 29.02.2008, declined to furnish the information on the ground that the information requested by the petitioner was the personal information pertaining to third parties, to be held in confidence by the Company and not liable to be released under the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent on 07.03.2008. The third respondent by a communication, dated 26.03.2008, rejected the appeal on the ground that the information sought relates to third parties and intimated to the petitioner in the said communication that the petitioner had remedy by way of a second appeal to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.

Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by a communication of the second respondent, dated 07.04.2008, that the appellate authority, third respondent had observed Corporation may provide information as solicited by the petitioner with the consent of the concerned candidates. The second respondent sought clearance from the 7 candidates as to whether information regarding their particulars could be furnished to the petitioner. 5 of the candidates, except Natesh Kumar Sagaram and Venkateswar Reddy Katha, recorded no objection as to the furnishing of information, while the above two individuals objected to the furnishing of information to the petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent informed in the letter, dated 07.04.2008, that the petitioner may deposit the requisite amounts stipulated under the provisions of the Act for furnishing information relating to 5 candidates. The petitioner’s grievance is that the refusal by the respondents to furnish information on the ground that it pertains to third parties is unsustainable under the provisions of the Act.