Bar and Bench: Chennai: Tuesday, 28 March 2023.
The Court said that TASMAC was a public body bound to provide information under the Right to Information Act.
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) to disclose under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, details of the quantity of liquor it procured from individual private breweries and distilleries, and the price at which it procured the same.
Justice SM Subramaniam said in his order,
"This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a trade secret or any secret involving in the manufacture of liquor. The Rate fixed between the 'State' and the Private company for procurement cannot be considered as a confidentiality. 'State' is undoubtedly accountable to the public at large. Information can be denied, if any public interest has been involved. Disclosure of the name of the company from where the purchase is made or the rate agreed between the 'State' and the factory cannot be construed as confidential, since the public at large is entitled to know the rate fixed by the 'State' for the purchase of liquors, since it involves public money."
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Coimbatore-based lawyer M Loganathan challenging the rejection of such information sought through his application filed before the the Tamil Nadu Public Information Commission (TNPIC).
Loganathan had sought the above information from TASMAC for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Such information was denied to him, as TASMAC claimed that the same involved matters of commercial confidence and, therefore, was exempted from being made public as per the proviso clause to Section 8 of the RTI Act.
However, in compliance with a previous order of the Court, TASMAC submitted the details sought by Loganathan in a sealed cover.
Justice Subramaniam went through the sealed cover report and held that such information was in no way a trade secret, or a matter of commercial confidence. On the contrary, TASMAC being a State body, was accountable to respond to the petitioner's query keeping in mind the principle of transparency in the State's activities, the Court held.
"...therefore, all the details regarding procurement, sale, fixing of rate, brand name cannot be construed as a commercial confidence or brought within the definition of 'commercial confidence' under the scope of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."
The Court further said that the very purpose of the RTI Act, was to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of every public authority. And TASMAC being a State-owned organisation dealing with public money, its functioning must be accountable to the "public at large," it said.
Advocate A Suresh Kumar appeared for Loganathan. Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal appeared for the respondents TNPIC and the Public Information Officer. Additional Advocate General J Ravindran appeared for TASMAC.
The Court said that TASMAC was a public body bound to provide information under the Right to Information Act.
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) to disclose under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, details of the quantity of liquor it procured from individual private breweries and distilleries, and the price at which it procured the same.
Justice SM Subramaniam said in his order,
"This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a trade secret or any secret involving in the manufacture of liquor. The Rate fixed between the 'State' and the Private company for procurement cannot be considered as a confidentiality. 'State' is undoubtedly accountable to the public at large. Information can be denied, if any public interest has been involved. Disclosure of the name of the company from where the purchase is made or the rate agreed between the 'State' and the factory cannot be construed as confidential, since the public at large is entitled to know the rate fixed by the 'State' for the purchase of liquors, since it involves public money."
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Coimbatore-based lawyer M Loganathan challenging the rejection of such information sought through his application filed before the the Tamil Nadu Public Information Commission (TNPIC).
Loganathan had sought the above information from TASMAC for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Such information was denied to him, as TASMAC claimed that the same involved matters of commercial confidence and, therefore, was exempted from being made public as per the proviso clause to Section 8 of the RTI Act.
However, in compliance with a previous order of the Court, TASMAC submitted the details sought by Loganathan in a sealed cover.
Justice Subramaniam went through the sealed cover report and held that such information was in no way a trade secret, or a matter of commercial confidence. On the contrary, TASMAC being a State body, was accountable to respond to the petitioner's query keeping in mind the principle of transparency in the State's activities, the Court held.
"...therefore, all the details regarding procurement, sale, fixing of rate, brand name cannot be construed as a commercial confidence or brought within the definition of 'commercial confidence' under the scope of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."
The Court further said that the very purpose of the RTI Act, was to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of every public authority. And TASMAC being a State-owned organisation dealing with public money, its functioning must be accountable to the "public at large," it said.
Advocate A Suresh Kumar appeared for Loganathan. Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal appeared for the respondents TNPIC and the Public Information Officer. Additional Advocate General J Ravindran appeared for TASMAC.
.JPG)
.JPG)
