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.
COMMR. GREATER MUMBAI
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 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 of information. The disclosure of plans, which are required to be in public domain, whether under the repealed Act or RERA, can hardly be said to be matters of commercial confidence or trade secrets. In fact, ex facie, these terms would not apply to the matter at hand. Similarly, insofar as the intellectual property is concerned, the preparation of the plan and its designs may give rise to the copyright in favour of a particular person, but the disclosure of that work would not amount to an infringement and, in fact, Section 52(1)(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 specifically provides that there would be no such infringement if there is reproduction of any work in a certified copy made or supplied in accordance with any law for the time being in force. This is what is exactly sought for by respondent No.3 – certified copies of the approved plans and its modifications, from the public authority, being the Corporation. Also, section 22 of the said Act provides for an overriding effect with a notwithstanding clause qua any inconsistency with any other Act. The aforesaid provision would not imply that a disclosure permissible under the Copyright Act, 1957 is taken away under the provisions of the said Act, but rather, if a disclosure is prescribed under any other Act, the provisions of the said Act would have an overriding effect. [Paras 24, 25][258-G-H; 259-A-E]
4. Similarly, clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act ex facie would have no relevance. There is no ‘personal information’ of which disclosure is sought. Further it cannot be said that it has no relation to public activity or interest, or that it is unwarranted, or there is an invasion of privacy. These are documents filed before public authorities, required to be put in public domain, by the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 and the RERA, and involves a public element of making builders accountable to one and all. That respondent No.3, in fact, happens to be the administrator of the property in question, which will certainly not reduce his rights as opposed to anyone else, including a flat buyer. [Para 26] [259-G-H; 260-A-B]
COMMR. GREATER MUMBAI
5. Keeping in mind the provisions of RERA and their objective, the developer should mandatorily display at the site the sanction plan. The provision of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA require the sanction plan/layout plans along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, to be displayed at the site or such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made by the Authority. Keeping in mind the ground reality of rampant violations and the consequences thereof, it is advisable to issue directions for display of such sanction plan/layout plans at the site, apart from any other manner provided by the Regulations made by the Authority. This aspect should be given appropriate publicity as part of enforcement of RERA. [Para 34] [261-E-F]
Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ferani Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. (Decision dated 08.04.2015 in CA No.3396/2015 of Bombay High Court) ; Thalappalam Service
Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 82 : [2013] 14 SCR 475 ; Dr. V.I. Mathan & Ors. v. Corporation of Chennai & Ors.
(Decision dated 22.03.2016 in WP No.4057/2016 of Madras High Court) ; Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat State Information Commission & Ors.
AIR 2007 Gujarat 203 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.