ORDER : The respondent No. 3 filed an application on 24.11.2011 under the Right to Information Act, seeking information from the writ petitioner-company. He wanted the information with regard to the sale of the products by the petitioner-company within and outside the State. On 24.12.2011, he was informed that the information could not be supplied to him as it was a third-party information and the third party has objection with regard to the supply of the same, since it pertains to trade secrets. Hence, it could not be disclosed. 2. Aggrieved by the same, a first appeal was filed, which was rejected. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the State Information Commissioner. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order allowed the appeal and directed the respondent No. 2 to furnish the information. Aggrieved by the same, the Company has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the information sought for pertains to the business activities of the petitioner-company and such information is protected in terms of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. 4. The same is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. On a specific question being asked from the learned counsel, he submits that the information was required in order to bring home the irregularities being committed by the petitioner-company. 5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that appropriate interference is called for. 6. The reason assigned by the State Information Commissioner is hard to accept. The factum of sales of products of the petitioner-company has no relevance so far as the applicant is concerned. The applicant claims to be the Chief Editor of “Himwanti Media” at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. He claims to be a media person by profession. Therefore, only because he seeks for information, does not mean that the same should be provided. What is sought for, is the sale of products effected by the Company within and outside the State. They are within the business purview of the petitioner. To whom it has sold the products and to what extent of money, is not of any concern to anybody. 7. So far as the alleged irregularities are concerned, they are only a figment of imagination of the third respondent. If at all, there are irregularities and violation of law, the concerned authority will take care of the same. To whom it has sold the products and to what extent of money, is not of any concern to anybody. 7. So far as the alleged irregularities are concerned, they are only a figment of imagination of the third respondent. If at all, there are irregularities and violation of law, the concerned authority will take care of the same. The petitioner-company may be liable for it. 8. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to sustain the impugned order. Even otherwise, it is brought to our notice that the company has been wound up in May, 2018 and is presently in the hands of the liquidator. This is yet another reason as to why the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 11.12.2012, passed by the State Information Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-1) is quashed. 10. Prayer-C is dismissed as not pressed. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off. The pending miscellaneous application is also disposed off.