JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge By medium of this writ petition, the following reliefs have been prayed for: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the respondent No.1. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to furnish the information as sought by the petitioner under RTI. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.” 2. This case owes its genesis to an application filed by the petitioner under Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act’) on 15.4.2014 wherein he demanded the following informations : “To Mr. Sushil Mahajan (AGM I/C), The Public Information Officer, Dhaulasidh HEP, H.No. 113, Ward No.1 Krishna Nagar, Hamirpur(Himachal Pradesh) Pin – 177001. Sir, Subject: Request for information under Right to Information Act, 2005. I, Shri Shekhar S. Shrivastava, sonof late Sh. S.S. shrivastava, resident of A -121, Third Floor, Shiv Mandir Marg, Mandawali, Delhi – 110092, wish to seek information with respect to Dhaulasidh Hydro-electric Project (66 MW) as under: a. Copy of the report of the Tender Evaluation Committee with respect to the said Project. b. Copies of case file notings beginning 29.04.2012 invitation for bids till Notification of annulment of bidding process on 10.04.2014 including opening, responsiveness, evaluation and award process. c. What is the basis of Annulment of the Bid Process? d. Whether the whole tender is cancelled or only the Bid Process is annulled? 1. You are requested to furnish the information within a period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 6 (1) of the Act. 2. I state that the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains to your office. 3. I also state that I am a citizen of India and am eligible to seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. Two Postal Order Nos. 64C 982152 and 64C 982153 dated 15.04.2014 of Rs.5/- (Rupees Five Only) each aggregating to Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten only) are enclosed herewith as Application Fee as prescribed under the Act. Place :New Delhi Sd/- Date: 15.04.2014. 4. Two Postal Order Nos. 64C 982152 and 64C 982153 dated 15.04.2014 of Rs.5/- (Rupees Five Only) each aggregating to Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten only) are enclosed herewith as Application Fee as prescribed under the Act. Place :New Delhi Sd/- Date: 15.04.2014. (SHEKHAR S. SHRIVASTAVA) Postal Address: A-121, Third Floor, Shiv Mandir Marg, Mandawali, Delhi – 110092.” 3. Respondent No.4 returned the request of the petitioner on the ground that the issue did not pertain to that office and may be relating to the SJVN Ltd. Corporate Office. 4. This obviously was in utter disregard and in violation of Section 6 (3) of the Act, which reads thus: “6.(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,— (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.” 5. The petitioner thereafter vide his application dated 12.5.2014 again made a similar request to respondent No.3 seeking therein the same information. According to the petitioner, Respondent No.3 did not even bother to either supply the information nor sent a reply, thus constraining him to file an appeal before the respondent No.2. This appeal was disposed of by informing the petitioner that the reply to his application had already been sent by the Public Information Officer on 23.6.2014 and a copy of the same was enclosed for his ready reference. 6. Now, insofar as the information dated 23.6.2014 is concerned, the same reads thus: “SJVN/RTI/PIO/029 Dated: 23.06.2014 To Sh. Shekhar Srivastava, A-121, Third Floor, Shiv Mandir Marg, Mandawali, Delhi – 110092. Subject: Information under RTI Act. Sir, Please refer to your letter on the above cited subject. In this regard, it is informed that the information as sought by you pertains to evaluation/examination of information furnished by various applicants for prequalification by SJVN. Shekhar Srivastava, A-121, Third Floor, Shiv Mandir Marg, Mandawali, Delhi – 110092. Subject: Information under RTI Act. Sir, Please refer to your letter on the above cited subject. In this regard, it is informed that the information as sought by you pertains to evaluation/examination of information furnished by various applicants for prequalification by SJVN. Since the information as sought by you would harm the competitive position of third party and as such no larger public interest is involved, the information is denied as per section 8 (1) (d) of Right to Information Act. Sd/- (D. Sarveswar) PIO 23/6/14.” 7. Aggrieved by the information so supplied by respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1 which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2014 and the same reads thus: “Order: M/s Continental Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi through its Director Sh. Promod Kumar Mishra sought information regarding proceedings of Tender Evaluation Committee from the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. This application was dismissed as misconceived on 18.06.2014 by the Hon’ble High Court. The Company Secretary, Sh. Shekhar Sharan Srivastava of M/s Continental Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi has filed similar application under RTI Act, but has concealed his real identity and has applied as a citizen of India. It seems that he is well aware of the legal position in this respect. The request was rejected by the PIO and his first appeal was dismissed on the ground that information was exempted under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. Notice of the second appeal was issued and parties were heard in detail. Right to Information is available to citizens of India who are natural persons. A Company or a Corporation being a legal person cannot seek information under RTI Act. No relief can be granted to the Company Secretary, who has tried to conceal his identity. He is also not entitled to the said information as a citizen because it is 3rd party information and there is no public interest. It is contractual matter and there is only commercial interest. In the firsts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this second appeal and it is accordingly disposed of. Announced. Sd/- (K.D.Batish) State Information Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.” 8. All the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds as have been taken in this writ petition. 9. In the firsts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this second appeal and it is accordingly disposed of. Announced. Sd/- (K.D.Batish) State Information Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.” 8. All the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds as have been taken in this writ petition. 9. Respondent No.1 has not chosen to file its reply, whereas respondents No. 2 to 4 in their reply have raised preliminary objections of suppression veri and expression falsi, petitioner having not approached this Court with clean hands. A detailed reference has then been made to the competitive bidding through e-procurement mode for the execution of civil works of 66 MW Dhaulasidh Hydro Electric Project on item rate contract basis and it is claimed that the present petitioner had represented one of the competitor i.e. M/s Continental Construction Corporation Ltd., as a Company Secretary and when despite best efforts made by M/s Continental Construction Corporation Ltd., it failed to get the information, the petitioner with ulterior motive and exceeding his right has now sought the information under Right to Information Act. It is further averred that the petitioner was working as Company Secretary with M/s Continental Construction Corporation Ltd. and the information sought for by him under RTI was by concealing his real identity and was, therefore, not in public interest and thus rightly denied by invoking the provision of Section 8 (1) (d) of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 10. It cannot be disputed that the right to information as on date has attained the status of a fundamental right and information sought for has to be provided if applied under proper procedure save and except the informations as specifically protected/ exempted under the Act. This is evident from Section 3 of the Act, which reads thus: “3. Right to information. – Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” 11. Section 2 (n) of the Act defines “third party” as follows- “2(n) “third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.” 12. Section 8 provides for exemption from disclosure of information. – Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” 11. Section 2 (n) of the Act defines “third party” as follows- “2(n) “third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.” 12. Section 8 provides for exemption from disclosure of information. This Section provides that certain information may not be disclosed even under the Act and clause (d) of sub Section (1) of Section 8 exempts information which may be related to commercial confidence, trade secrets, intellectual property of rights etc. and the same reads thus: “8. Section 8 provides for exemption from disclosure of information. This Section provides that certain information may not be disclosed even under the Act and clause (d) of sub Section (1) of Section 8 exempts information which may be related to commercial confidence, trade secrets, intellectual property of rights etc. and the same reads thus: “8. Exemption from disclosure of information.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,— (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (f) information received in confidence from foreign government; (g) information, the disclosure of 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; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. 13. Section 11 deals with third party information and sub Section (1) thereof reads as follows: “11. Third party information. -(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.” 14. The procedure as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act has evidently not been followed and rather the respondents took it upon themselves and invoked the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) of the Act to deny information to the petitioner. 15. It cannot be disputed that the right to information is a cherished right because the information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secretary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497 , wherein it was observed as under: “66. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.” 16. The right to information has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as inherent in Article 19 of the Constitution, thereby, elevating it to a fundamental right of the citizens in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2013) 16 SCC 82 and it was held:- “54. People’s right to have access to an official information finds place in Resolution 59(1) of the UN General Assembly held in 1946. It states that freedom of information is a fundamental human right and the touchstone to all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated. India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and hence India is under an obligation to effectively guarantee the right to information. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also recognizes right to information. 55. The right to information also emanates from the fundamental right guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Constitution of India does not explicitly grant a right to information. In Bennet Coleman & Co. and others Vs. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also recognizes right to information. 55. The right to information also emanates from the fundamental right guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Constitution of India does not explicitly grant a right to information. In Bennet Coleman & Co. and others Vs. Union of India and others (1972) 2 SCC 788 , this Court observed that it is indisputable that by “Freedom of Press” meant the right of all citizens to speak, publish and express their views and freedom of speech and expression includes within its compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed. In Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms and another (2002) 5 SCC 294 , this Court held that the right to know about the antecedents including criminal past of the candidates contesting the election for Parliament and State Assembly is a very important and basic facets for survival of democracy and for this purpose, information about the candidates to be selected must be disclosed. In State of U.P. Vs. Raj Narain and others (1975) 4 SCC 428 , this Court recognized that the right to know is the right that flows from the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and others Vs. Union of India and another (2003) 4 SCC 399, this Court observed that the “[r]ight to information is a facet of freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Right to information thus indisputably is a fundamental right”. (SCC p. 494, para 45) so held in several judgments of this Court, which calls for no further elucidation. 56. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is an Act which provides for setting up the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. Preamble of the Act also states that the democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. Preamble of the Act also states that the democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. Citizens have, however, the right to secure access to information of only those matters which are “under the control of public authorities”, the purpose is to hold “the Government and its instrumentalities” accountable to the governed. Consequently, though right to get information is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, limits are being prescribed under the Act itself, which are reasonable restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India”. 17. Looking into the nature of the information sought for by the petitioner from the respondents, I really fail to understand as to how the same was exempted under any of the provisions of Section 8 much less under Clause (d) of sub Section (1) thereof. After all, the petitioner was not seeking any confidential or secret document and the same otherwise did not fall within any of the exceptions as contemplated under Section 8 (1) (d) of the Act. Once it was so, then there was no valid or justifiable reason why the respondents should have withheld the information. 18. Now, adverting to the order passed by respondent No.1, it would be noticed that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that “the petitioner was a Company Secretary of M/s CCC Ltd., who has tried to conceal his identity, and, therefore, no relief could be granted to him as it was the third party information and there was no public interest.” 19. It appears that respondent No.1 was totally oblivious to the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Act, which reads thus: “6.(2). An application making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.” 20. It is evidently clear from the bare language of the aforesaid provision that no information is required to be supplied by the applicant except those that may be necessary for contacting him. It is thus clear that the credentials of the applicant i.e. petitioner are of no relevance and are not at all to be taken into account while giving the information. It is thus clear that the credentials of the applicant i.e. petitioner are of no relevance and are not at all to be taken into account while giving the information. Truth remains the truth and it is not important who access it. 21. Even, the question of larger public interest would have only arisen in case the information sought could be held to fall under the exemption envisaged under Section 8 (1) (d) of the Act ibid. 22. The other ground on which the respondent No.1 denied the information to the petitioner was that similar application had been dismissed by this Court on 18.6.2014 and the same reads thus: “The petitioner-applicant has laid this motion in a writ petition which stands already disposed of and is not on the Board of this Court. This application is dismissed as misconceived. However, liberty is reserved to seek appropriate remedy.” 23. I really wonder how the aforesaid order could have worked against the petitioner. After all, this Court had only rejected the application as being misconceived and that too because the writ petition had already been disposed of and was not on the Board of this Court. To the contrary, this Court had specifically reserved liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. 24. This Court really wonders why the respondents No. 2 to 4 were ought to drive the petitioner from pillar to post and what is it that they really intended or wanted to conceal. Even if there was a litigation pending, the same had to be fought in a ‘fair and square’ manner especially when the respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is duty bound to act within the four corners of law. 25. This Court cannot overlook the conduct of respondents No. 2 to 4 in malafidely denying the information to which the petitioner was legally and legitimately entitled to and to say the least, it was definitely not above board. 26. Having said so, the present petition is allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to decide afresh the application filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 26. Having said so, the present petition is allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to decide afresh the application filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Since the respondents No. 2 to 4 have made all out endeavours to defeat the provisions of the Right to Information Act and have malafidely denied the request for information, they are saddled with costs of Rs. 20,000/- each to be paid personally by respondents No. 2 to 4 to the petitioner. 27. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.