FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. versus THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 27-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.
v.
THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.9064-9065 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Right to Information Act, 2005 – ss. 6(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j)
and 9 – Information regarding the plans submitted to public
authorities by a developer of a project – Disclosure of – A
development agreement was executed between respondent no.3 and
appellant for carrying out development on a property – Dispute
arose between the parties – Respondent no.3 filed application u/
s.6(1) of the Act before the Public Information Officer (PIO) and
sought information regarding development plans submitted by the
appellant – Information was declined by PIO – First Appellate
Authority partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.3,
by disclosing information regarding one question only out of five
questions – However, respondent no.3 succeeded in second appeal
– Aggrieved, writ petition was filed by the appellant and same was
dismissed – On appeal, held: There was no ‘personal information’
of which disclosure was sought – It cannot be said that information
sought had no relation to public activity or interest, or that it was
unwarranted, or there was an invasion of privacy – The provisions
of sub-section (3) of s.11 of RERA, mandatorily required the
developer to display sanction plan/layout plans along with
specifications, approved by the competent authority at the site or
such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made by
the Authority – That respondent no.3 was the administrator of the
property in question and that did not reduce his rights as opposed
to anyone, including a flat buyer – Costs of Rs.2.50 lakhs imposed
on appellant – Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
– s.11(3) – Copyright Act, 1957 – ss.52(1)(f) and 22 – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.74.
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 244
244
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  Section 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, provides the functions and duties of
promoters.  The duties are more elaborate, as under Section 11(1)
of the RERA the promoter has to create his web page on the
website of the Authority and enter all details of the proposed
project as provided under sub-section (2) of section 4, in all the
fields as provided, for public viewing.  The promoter, in terms of
sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA is required to make
available to the allottee information about sanctioned plans,
layout plans along with specifications, approved by the
competent authority, by display at the site or such other place as
may be specified by the Regulations made by the Authority.  The
object is clearly to bring greater transparency. [Para 22]
[258-C-E]
2.  The fate of purchase of land development and
investments is a matter of public knowledge and debate.  Any
judicial pronouncement must squarely weigh in favour of the
fullest disclosure, in this behalf.  In fact, the Division Bench of
the Madras High Court in Dr. V.I. Mathan & Ors. vs. Corporation
of Chennai & Ors. opined that though the Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority mandated plans to be displayed at the
site and also be made available on the website, the same
principle should apply to the Corporation for all other sanctioned
plans and, thus, issued directions for display of the plans on the
website of the Corporation, and at the site, with clear
visibility.  This was just prior to the RERA coming into force.
[Para 23] [258-E-G]
3.  In the aforesaid circumstances, even by a test of public
interest, it can hardly be said that the same would not apply in
matters of full disclosure of information of development plans to
all and everyone.  If one turns to the provisions of Section 8 of
the said Act and the clauses under which the exception is sought,
clause (d) deals with information relating to commercial
confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, which has the
potentiality to harm the competitive position of a third party.
Firstly, the definition of a third party under Section 2(n) of the
said Act means a person other than a citizen requesting for
FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. v. STATE INFORMATION
COMMR. GREATER MUMBAI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
information to a public authority.  Under Section 11 of the said
Act, the third party has a right to be heard and to object to the
disclosure o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.