Issues Raised – the problems or questions brought before the court.
The main problem raised was whether a real estate developer (the appellant) had to release confidential project plans and related documents to the original landowner (Respondent No. 3) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The developer argued that these plans were exempt from disclosure because they contained sensitive commercial information, trade secrets, and protected intellectual property/copyright.
Issues Framed – the main questions the court decided to examine.
-
- Whether the information sought (certified copies of plans, layouts, and amendments submitted to the Municipal Corporation) falls under the exemptions of the RTI Act, specifically regarding commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property (Sections 8(1)(d) and 9).
-
- Whether the applicant (Respondent No. 3) was required to prove a “larger public interest” to receive the information, especially since the parties had existing private litigation over the land.
-
- Whether Respondent No. 3 was barred from seeking this information under the RTI Act because he had previously tried and failed to obtain similar documents during the related ongoing civil suit.
Observations on Issues Framed – what the court noticed or said on each issue.
-
- RTI is an Independent Right: The Court noted that the RTI Act grants an independent legal right to citizens to obtain information, regardless of any private legal disputes between the parties.
-
- Plans are Public Documents: The plans, layouts, and sub-division plans submitted to the Municipal Corporation for sanction form part of the public record. Since these documents must be approved by the Corporation (a public authority), they are deemed public in nature.
-
- No Commercial Secret: The disclosure of approved plans cannot be considered a matter of commercial confidence or trade secret. The development of land is a matter of public knowledge, and judicial decisions should favor the fullest disclosure.
-
- Copyright is Not Infringed: While the plan design might involve intellectual property, obtaining a certified copy from a public authority does not infringe copyright. The Copyright Act specifically permits the reproduction of work when supplied as a certified copy in accordance with law.
-
- No Reason Needed: The RTI Act does not mandate that an applicant must provide any reason for requesting information. The primary goal is to promote transparency and accountability.
-
- Owner’s Right: The owner of the property (Respondent No. 3) who granted the development authority should certainly not have less right to the information than a flat purchaser would, especially since real estate laws (like the now-repealed Maharashtra Act and the RERA Act) require developers to make these plans available.
Sections Interpreted – the sections of law and Act names discussed by the court.
-
- Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act): Sections dealing with the right to information (2(f), 2(j)), the request process (Section 6), exemptions for commercial confidence/trade secrets/intellectual property (Sections 8(1)(d) and 9), and exemptions for personal information (Section 8(1)(j)). The Section giving the RTI Act overriding effect (Section 22) was also noted.
-
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA): Section 11 (Promoters’ duties to disclose sanctioned plans).
-
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 9 and the Maharashtra Amendment Section 9A (which deals with preliminary issues of jurisdiction in suits).
-
- Copyright Act, 1957: Section 52(1)(f) (Exemption for certified copies).
-
- Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963: Section 3(2)(l) (Prior disclosure requirements for promoters).
Law Settled – the legal rule or principle made clear by the court.
Development plans, layout plans, and amendments that have been sanctioned and approved by a public authority (like a Municipal Corporation) must be disclosed under the RTI Act. These documents are not protected as trade secrets or commercial confidence. The right to information is independent of any personal disputes, and seeking certified copies of public records does not infringe on copyright.
Judgment / Directions (Conclusion) – the final order or directions of the court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the developer.
The Court affirmed that the development plans and associated documents must be disclosed to Respondent No. 3.
The appellant (Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2.50 lakhs (Two lakhs and fifty thousand rupees) to Respondent No. 3 because the appeal was deemed a “legal misadventure” driven by a private dispute.
The Court also directed that, given the objectives of the RERA Act, developers should mandatorily display sanction plans/layout plans at the project site to ensure transparency.