Supreme Court Upholds Disclosure of Building Plans Under RTI Act: Ferani Hotels vs. State Information Commissioner (27 September 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 840

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a person be denied access to building plans submitted to a public authority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the disclosure of building plans under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court examined whether a private party could be denied access to such plans, especially when the plans were already part of the public record. The bench was composed of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute between Ferani Hotels Private Limited (the appellant) and Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia (respondent No. 3), the administrator of the estate of late Shri E.F. Dinshaw. Mr. Dinshaw owned three plots in Mumbai. In 1995, Mr. Wadia, as administrator, entered into a Development Agreement with Ferani Hotels, granting them power of attorney to develop the plots. However, disputes arose in 2008, leading Mr. Wadia to terminate the agreement and power of attorney. He then filed a suit seeking a declaration that the termination was valid.

During the suit, Mr. Wadia sought disclosure of certain documents, which Ferani Hotels refused. This request was not addressed by the Bombay High Court or the Supreme Court in subsequent proceedings related to interim relief. Later, Mr. Wadia filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking copies of building plans and related documents submitted by Ferani Hotels to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai refused to disclose the requested information, citing objections from Ferani Hotels. This led to an appeal by Mr. Wadia to the First Appellate Authority, which partially allowed the appeal, but still denied the building plans. Mr. Wadia then filed a second appeal before the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), which ruled in his favor, ordering the disclosure of the building plans. Ferani Hotels challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, which dismissed their writ petition. Finally, Ferani Hotels appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The core of this case involves the interpretation and application of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Act aims to promote transparency and accountability by granting citizens access to information held by public authorities. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(f): Defines “information” broadly to include any material in any form, including documents and records.
• Section 2(j): Defines “right to information” as the right to access information held by a public authority.
• Section 6: Outlines the procedure for requesting information, stating that no reason is required for requesting information.
• Section 8: Lists exemptions from disclosure, including information that could harm a third party’s competitive position (Section 8(1)(d)) and personal information with no public interest (Section 8(1)(j)).
• Section 9: Allows rejection of a request if it infringes on copyright.
• Section 11: Deals with third-party information and the process for objecting to disclosure.
• Section 22: Gives the RTI Act overriding effect over other laws.

Additionally, the Court considered Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which defines public documents, and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, which mandates certain disclosures by promoters. The Court also referred to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), which further emphasizes transparency in real estate projects.

Arguments

Appellant (Ferani Hotels) Arguments:

• No Public Interest: The information sought by Mr. Wadia was for private interest in the ongoing suit and not for any public interest, and thus should not be disclosed.

• Sub-judice Matter: The information was related to the suit proceedings, and since the matter was sub-judice, the information should not be disclosed.

• Commercial Harm: Disclosure would harm Ferani Hotels’ competitive position and reveal trade secrets and intellectual property.

• Copyright: The building plans are subject to copyright, and their disclosure would infringe on the rights of Ferani Hotels and its architect.

• Previous Denial: Mr. Wadia had previously sought the same information in the suit, which was not granted by the High Court.

• No Larger Public Interest: Mr. Wadia failed to show any larger public interest in disclosure of the information.

• Sections 10 & 11 of the RTI Act: The provisions of Sections 10 & 11 of the RTI Act have been rendered nugatory since the underlying documents of the development plans, drawings, etc. ought not to have been directed to be disclosed and only the grant of permission and approval by the Corporation, i.e., commencement certificate and occupation certificate could have been so directed at best.

• Vendetta: The attempt of Mr. Wadia to obtain the information was a vendetta against the appellant.

Respondent (Mr. Wadia) Arguments:

• Right to Information: As a citizen, Mr. Wadia had the right to access information held by a public authority like the Municipal Corporation.

• Public Documents: The building plans were public documents submitted to and approved by the Corporation.

• Transparency: Disclosure of building plans promotes transparency and accountability, which are the objectives of the RTI Act.

• No Bar: The information sought was not barred by any of the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

• Distinct Information: The information sought under the RTI Act was different from what was sought in the suit proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether the building plans submitted to public authorities by a developer can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Section 2(f) and Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to establish the broad definition of information and the right to access it.
• The Court used Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to highlight that no reason is required to seek information.
• The Court determined that the exemptions under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly clauses (d) and (j), did not apply to the building plans.
• The Court noted that Section 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding copyright infringement, was not applicable due to the exception under Section 52(1)(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
• The Court observed that Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning third-party information, had been complied with.
• The Court invoked Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to emphasize the overriding effect of the Act.
• The Court referred to Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to classify the building plans as public documents.
• The Court cited Section 3(2)(l) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, and Section 11 of the RERA, to highlight the disclosure requirements for promoters.
• The Court distinguished the case from Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2013) 16 SCC 82, stating that it was not applicable in the present facts.
• The Court supported its decision with the Madras High Court’s ruling in Dr. V .I. Mathan & Ors. vs. Corporation of Chennai & Ors., Order dated 22.3.2016 in WP No.4057/2016, which emphasized the public display of sanctioned plans.
• The Court dismissed the reliance on Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat State Information Commission & Ors., AIR 2007 Gujarat 203, stating it was not applicable in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle of transparency and accountability, which is the cornerstone of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that building plans submitted to public authorities are public documents and should be accessible to citizens. The Court found that the exemptions claimed by Ferani Hotels did not apply to the facts of the case. The Court also noted that the private dispute between the parties was the main reason for the objection to the disclosure of information, which was not a valid ground to deny the information under the RTI Act.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the legal principles and provisions of the RTI Act and other related laws, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case.

Key Takeaways

• Building plans submitted to public authorities are generally considered public documents and are subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
• The exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act are to be interpreted strictly, and the burden is on those claiming exemption to prove its applicability.
• The RTI Act has an overriding effect over other laws, ensuring greater transparency and accountability.
• Private disputes cannot be a ground to deny information under the RTI Act.
• Promoters are required to disclose sanctioned plans and other details of the project, as mandated by the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 and the RERA, 2016.
• The Court emphasized that the objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that developers should mandatorily display the sanctioned plans at the site of the project, in addition to any other manner provided by the regulations under the RERA. This direction was made to ensure greater transparency and to make builders accountable to the public.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that the Right to Information Act, 2005, should be interpreted liberally to promote transparency and accountability. The Court clarified that building plans submitted to public authorities are public documents and must be disclosed unless a specific exemption applies. This ruling further strengthens the rights of citizens to access information and ensures that public authorities are accountable for their actions. The ratio decidendi of the case is that building plans submitted to public authorities are public documents and must be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless a specific exemption applies. This position of law is not a change but a reaffirmation of the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Ferani Hotels, upholding the orders of the State Information Commissioner and the Bombay High Court. The Court ruled that the building plans sought by Mr. Wadia were public documents and must be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in public dealings and reinforces the citizen’s right to access information held by public authorities. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on Ferani Hotels for what it termed a legal misadventure.