Summary
The Supreme Court upheld disclosure under the RTI Act of approved building plans, layouts, development plans and amendments held by the municipal corporation. The developer’s private dispute with the applicant did not defeat this independent statutory right. The plans were not protected commercial secrets or personal information, and supplying certified copies did not infringe copyright. Third-party objections had been heard. The appeals were dismissed with Rs 2.50 lakh costs payable to the applicant; the Court also stressed display of sanctioned plans at project sites.
Issues
- Whether the applicant’s earlier civil proceedings barred the independent RTI request.
- Whether the approved plans attracted commercial-confidence, personal-information or copyright exemptions.
- Whether severance or third-party consultation prevented disclosure.
- What disclosure, site-display and costs consequences followed.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(f), 2(j), 2(n) and 6(2), Right to Information Act, 2005Approved plans held by the municipal public authority were information accessible through the statutory right. Applicants need not state reasons; the applicant’s ownership interest and commercial dispute did not diminish that right. (¶¶ 14–16, 26, 32–33)
- Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j) and 9, Right to Information Act, 2005The plans were not exempt commercial secrets or personal information, and certified-copy disclosure would not infringe copyright. A larger-public-interest justification becomes necessary where the claimed exemption actually applies. (¶¶ 17–18, 24–27)
- Section 22, Right to Information Act, 2005The Court considered the Act’s overriding effect while rejecting the argument that lawful certified-copy disclosure was barred by copyright. (¶ 24–25)
- Section 74, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The definition includes public records of private documents; the Court used it to explain why private documents submitted to a public authority may become part of the public record. (¶ 15)
- Section 11(3), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016The duty to make sanctioned and layout plans available supported transparency. The Court called for mandatory site display, alongside other prescribed publication, and appropriate publicity in enforcement. (¶¶ 22, 34)
Held
- The live request concerned plans, layouts, development plans and amendments: property-record copies had already been disclosed, and the applicant did not press the expansive request for reports and approvals. The decision should be read within that remaining controversy. (¶¶ 6, 8, 11)
- The civil disclosure demand differed from the specific RTI request and had not been adjudicated by the earlier courts. Their decisions addressed the preliminary jurisdiction issue instead. The objections based on estoppel, constructive res judicata and election of remedies therefore failed. (¶¶ 5, 12)
- RTI confers an independent statutory right. No reason for the request was required under section 6(2); the claimed commercial rivalry or vendetta did not establish a ground for withholding these public-authority records. (¶¶ 14–16, 28, 32–33)
- The approved plans were required to be publicly accessible and were not commercial confidence or trade secrets within section 8(1)(d). Nor did they constitute personal information warranting protection under section 8(1)(j). The Court also recognised the public interest in transparency and accountability in property development. (¶ 18–26)
- Possible copyright in preparing the design did not make disclosure an infringement. Section 52(1)(f) of the Copyright Act permits reproduction in certified copies made or supplied in accordance with law, which was what the applicant sought. The section 9 objection failed. (¶ 24–27)
- Severance required an exempt element, which was absent here. The third-party consultation requirement had been satisfied: the developer and architect had been allowed to object, and their objections had been considered. (¶ 29–31)
- The Court called for sanctioned and layout plans to be displayed at the site, apart from any other regulatory mode of publication, with publicity as part of RERA enforcement. It dismissed both appeals and awarded Rs 2.50 lakh costs payable by the developer to respondent 3. (¶ 34–36)
Result
Appeals dismissed; disclosure upheld within the remaining request, with Rs 2.50 lakh costs payable to respondent 3. Sanction-plan display at project sites emphasised.