JUDGMENT : 1. All the aforesaid 4(four) number of interlocutory applications have been filed for modification/alteration/vacation of the ex-parte interim orders qua the applicant, who was arrayed as the respondent no. 5 in WP(C)144(AP)2022, WP(C)145(AP)2022, WP(C)146(AP)2022 and respondent no. 3 in WP(C)149(AP)2022. The subject matter and the interim order being exactly similar, all the aforesaid 4 (four) numbers of interlocutory applications are taken up together for hearing and being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicant herein is an LLB graduate and a resident of East Siang District. He is an RTI activist. Apprehending that there has been large scale anomalies including instances of bias and nepotism in matters of allotment of contracts which are of immense public interest, the applicant had made applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter the Act), seeking information about the credentials of certain numbers of firms and contractors including the writ petitioners. It is the case of the applicant that in most of the cases for allotment, there is compromise and the kith and kin of the Officers are being favoured with the work, which ultimately has adverse effects on the quality. 3. On the application seeking information, the Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission had passed an order directing for furnishing the necessary information. The petitioners of whom information is sought for, alleged that such information amounts to their trade secrets and without hearing them, the direction ought not to have been passed. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions had been filed by the writ petitioners. 4. This Court vide various interim orders had stayed the order of the State Commission directing disclosure of such information. 5. I have heard Shri M. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant/private respondent no. 5 in WP(C)144(AP)2022, WP(C)145(AP)2022, WP(C)146(AP)2022 and respondent no. 3 in WP(C)149(AP)2022. I have also heard Shri N. Ratan, learned counsel for the opposite parties/writ petitioners, whereas, Shri R. Saikia has appeared for the Information Commission. 6. Shri Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that right to get information is a fundamental right and by the enactment of the Act of 2005, no new right has been created but only a machinery has been created for exercising of the said right. 6. Shri Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that right to get information is a fundamental right and by the enactment of the Act of 2005, no new right has been created but only a machinery has been created for exercising of the said right. By drawing the attention to the Act, the learned counsel has submitted that it is not even required to cite the reasons as to why such information is required and only the name and address of the applicant is required to be given. The learned counsel submits that the information which are sought for are in connection with the credentials, which are required for participating in various tender processes in which the writ petitioners were held to be eligible and consequently, allotted the work. It is alleged that the opposite parties/writ petitioners are all persons with vested interest for whom compromise have been made to allot the work which would ultimately adversely affect the quality of work. Shri Biswas accordingly submits that the interim order be vacated. 7. In support of his submission, Shri Biswas, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 525 . By drawing the attention of this Court to the said decision, the learned counsel has submitted that information cannot be withheld unless those fall within the exceptions. For ready reference, the relevant part of the aforesaid decisions is extracted herein below: “… 41. In the case of the Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112 , while declaring that it is part of the fundamental right of citizens under Article 19(1) (a) to know the assets and liabilities of candidates contesting election to the Parliament or the State Legislatures, a three Judge Bench of this Court held unequivocally that:- “The right to get information in a democracy is recognized all throughout and is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy (Para 56).” Thereafter, legislation was passed amending the Representation of People Act, 1951 that candidates need not provide such information. This Court in the case of PUCL vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399 , struck down that legislation by stating: “It should be properly understood that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution such as, right to equality and freedoms have no fixed contents. From time to time, this Court has filled in the skeleton with soul and blood and made it vibrant. Since the last more than 50 years, this Court has interpreted Articles 14, 19 and 21 and given meaning and colour so that the nation can have a truly republic democratic society.” 42. The RTI Act, 2005, as noted in its very preamble, does not create any new right but only provides machinery to effectuate the fundamental right to information. The institution of the CIC and the SICs are part of that machinery. The preamble also inter-alia states “… 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.” 43. The submission of the RBI that exceptions be carved out of the RTI Act regime in order to accommodate provisions of RBI Act and Banking Regulation Act is clearly misconceived. RTI Act, 2005 contains a clear provision (Section 22) by virtue of which it overrides all other Acts including Official Secrets Act. Thus, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law like RBI Act or Banking Regulation Act, the RTI Act, 2005 shall prevail insofar as transparency and access to information is concerned. Moreover, the RTI Act 2005, being a later law, specifically brought in to usher transparency and to transform the way official business is conducted, would have to override all earlier practices and laws in order to achieve its objective. The only exceptions to access to information are contained in RTI Act itself in Section 8. 55. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. The only exceptions to access to information are contained in RTI Act itself in Section 8. 55. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of the four situations (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer.” 8. On the other hand, Shri N. Ratan, learned counsel for the opposite parties/writ petitioners submits that the information sought for constitutes the trade secrets and are otherwise not liable to be disclosed. He submits that the recourse to the Act is on the behest of some rival contractors only with a purpose to harass the writ petitioners. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners are registered contractors and the said registrations are required to be renewed from time to time and on each renewal, all documents are required to be furnished to the authorities. The registration itself being a public document, the credentials can be presumed by such registration and the renewals and therefore, the present exercise is nothing but a gross abuse of the law. 9. Rejoining his submission, Shri Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant submits that registration of a contractor is only one of the eligibility criteria for participating in a tender process and each tender process would need some specific requirement which are to be supplied by the contractors and unless those requirement/criteria are met, such contractors cannot be held to be technically responsive or sound. It is in this context that the information is sought for to ensure that the contractor which are allotted the works are eligible and qualified, which would have a direct bearing with the quality of the work. 10. It is in this context that the information is sought for to ensure that the contractor which are allotted the works are eligible and qualified, which would have a direct bearing with the quality of the work. 10. The rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court, have been carefully examined. 11. A perusal of the application by which information is sought for would bring to a conclusion that such information, by no means can constitute any trade secret and are only part of the criteria, which are required to be fulfilled for different works allotted to the opposite parties/writ petitioners. Even applying the test of a reasonable mind, it is failed to be understood as to why the writ petitioners are shying away and objecting to disclosing certain credentials allegedly met by them and on the basis of which, works involving public ex-chequer and have been allotted to them. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the opposite parties/writ petitioners have failed to make out any prima-facie case in their favour. Further, no irreparable loss or injury would be suffered by the opposite parties/writ petitioners if the information is disclosed and the balance of convenience tilts against the writ petitioners. 13. Accordingly, all the interlocutory applications stand allowed and the interim order dated 08.04.2022, which was passed ex-parte, qua the applicant in WP(C)144 (AP)2022, WP(C)145 (AP)2022, WP(C)146 (AP)2022 and WP(C)149 (AP)2022 are vacated.