JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. 2. The matter arises under the Goa Right to Information Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The respondent No. 1 had sought some information from the petitioner Municipality in relation to a litigation which was pending in the Civil Court between the proprietor of Naguesh Traders and the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 sought the following information from the petitioner Municipality :- "(I) The name/names of the Proprietor/partner in relation to the business carried out by "Naguesh Traders." (II) The date of the application for issuing the licence to display Board. (III) The date of issuance of licence." 3. He also told the Municipality that he wants this information for the purpose of producing before the Court. He applied to the Municipality for this information under section 3 of the Act. The Municipality, however, by letter dated 22nd April, 1998 refused to furnish this information on the ground that the information sought was not in the public interest. Against that letter an appeal has been filed under section 6 of the Act to the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 27th October, 1998 passed in Information Appeal No. 40 of 1998 held that the Municipality was wrong in denying the information to the respondent No. 1 and directed to furnish the information. This order is under challenge by the Municipality in this petition. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. Kantak for the Municipality has argued that the respondent No. 1 in his application has stated that for the purpose of private end the information was required by him. Therefore, the letter written by the Municipality on 22nd April, 1998 stating the reason for rejecting the application that it will not serve the public interest is fully justified. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. V.R. Tamba, however, strongly contended that the Municipality cannot withhold such information because the purpose of the very Act is to provide transparency to the citizens with regard to public institutions like the Municipality. He also drew my attention to the proviso to section 5 and argued----that any information which cannot be denied-----to the State Legislature shall not be denied-----to any person. He also drew my attention to the proviso to section 5 and argued----that any information which cannot be denied-----to the State Legislature shall not be denied-----to any person. According to him, the information which he seeks is an information which cannot be denied to the State Legislature and, therefore, he is entitled for that information. He cited the decision in (Rupchand Hemandas Panjwani and another v. Smt. Heera Jawaharmal Mirchandani)1, A.I.R. 1968 Bombay 100. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to certain relevant sections of the Act which are as follows :- "2.(a) ....................................... (b) ......................................... (c) 'Information' means any material or information relating to the affairs of the State or any local or other authorities constituted under any enactment passed by the Legislative Assembly of Goa for the time being in force or a statutory authority or a Company, Corporation, Trust, Firm, Society or a Co-operative Society, or any Organisation funded or controlled by the Government or executing any public work or service on behalf of or as authorised by the Government. (d) 'Right to Information' means the right of access to information and includes the inspection of works, documents, records, taking notes and extracts and obtaining certified copies of documents or records, or taking samples of material. 3. Right to Information.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, every citizen shall have right to obtain information from a competent authority. 5. (d) 'Right to Information' means the right of access to information and includes the inspection of works, documents, records, taking notes and extracts and obtaining certified copies of documents or records, or taking samples of material. 3. Right to Information.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, every citizen shall have right to obtain information from a competent authority. 5. Restrictions on right to information.- The Competent Authority may, for reasons recorded in writing, with hold.- (a) Information, the disclosure or contents of which will prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or security of the State or Internationals relations or public order or administration of justice or investigation of an offence or which leads to incitement to an offence; (b) Information relating to an individual or other information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any activity of the Government or which will not subserve any public interest and would constitute a clear and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (c) Trade and commercial secrets or any other information protected by Law; (d) Information whose release would constitute a breach of Parliament of Legislative Assembly Privilege; (e) Information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given inconfidence for law enforcement or security purposes or in public interest: Provided that information which cannot be denied to the State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." The learned Counsel for the Municipality Mr. Kantak has contended that the proviso to section 5 will apply only to Clause (e) because if it applies to Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) the entire restriction sought to be imposed by the Act will be rendered otiose. That contention has been negatived by the Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal directed the Municipality to furnish the information to the respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Municipality Mr. Kantak reiterated his argument and I find substance in that contention. 6. In the light of the rival contentions I have to examine the effect of proviso to each one of the clauses of section 5. Clause (a) deals with the information or disclosure or contents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Municipality Mr. Kantak reiterated his argument and I find substance in that contention. 6. In the light of the rival contentions I have to examine the effect of proviso to each one of the clauses of section 5. Clause (a) deals with the information or disclosure or contents. Section 5 restricts the authority from giving the information or contents which may prejudice the sovereignty and integrity of India or the Administration of Justice or the Investigation of offences which lead to incitement of an offence. If the proviso is applied to section 5 generally to all its sub-clauses, the purpose for which that restriction is imposed will become nugatory. So also Clause (b) relates to information relating to an individual or other information. The restriction imposed is in supplying the information which will not subserve the public interest and also the information which may be likely to effect the personal privacy. If the proviso is applied, then the entire Clause (b) will become nugatory. The result will be that all private interest and personal privacy will have to be disclosed to the seeker of the information. The result will be very fatal. Section 5, Clause (b) brings about an object to protect a citizen's right of privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if such a restriction is not there, the entire Act comes under the mischief of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In order to avoid the calamity the legislature thought it fit to incorporate such provision as contained in Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d). It is also to be noted that the class of information which is stated in Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) and the class of information stated in Clause (e) is quite different. The information under Clause (e) relates to the disclosure which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes or in public interest. Therefore, if on an harmonious reading of the provisions in order to save the legislation from the vice of unconstitutionality, the Court will always choose a path which can save the enactment by reading down the same is consistant with the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, if on an harmonious reading of the provisions in order to save the legislation from the vice of unconstitutionality, the Court will always choose a path which can save the enactment by reading down the same is consistant with the provisions of the Constitution. The enactment if is so read, I have no doubt in my mind that the proviso will relate only to Clause (e) and I have to accept the contention that if such a reading is adopted the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed. I do so. 7. Looking from another angle, this proviso makes the legislature and an ordinary person on par in seeking information. What information a legislature is entitled to, such information the citizens are also entitled to receive. That gives a general guideline to both the author and the seeker. The proviso only seeks to further explain the section. But a legislature is also not entitled to get information if it relates to the subject, enumerated in sub-clause under section 5 of the Act. Viewing in this prospective also the appellate order is liable to be set aside. 8. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b). In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----