Delhi Metro Rail Corp Ltd v. Sudhir Vohra

SANJIV KHANNA, J. Kapil/dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 5th July, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on:1st August, 2011 + LPA No. 145/2011 DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG with Mr.Tarun Johri, Adv. Versus SH. SUDHIR VOHRA ..... Respondent Through: Respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Calling in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 24th December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3036/2010, the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the respondent, an architect, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity "the RTI Act") requiring the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) to give him "all structural drawings of both the pile foundation and the superstructure, including all steel reinforcement details, foundation details, engineering calculations and soil tests" pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar No.67 which had collapsed on 12th July, 2009 resulting in the death of six persons and injury to many others. The Central Public Information Officer of the DMRC, by communication dated 7th/10th July, 2009, declined the information sought on the ground that it was intellectual property of the DMRC and considerable cost and time had been spent in preparing the design. The DMRC also claimed exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Central Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC). Before the Commission, a further ground was urged by the appellant that if the details of the designs / drawings are disclosed to the applicant for the public at large, there is a possibility of anti-national elements causing sabotage to the structures at the vulnerable points and that is why photography of certain sensitive structures such as bridges, etc. is prohibited. In essence, it was urged that the disclosure of the designs / drawings in question would be prejudicial to the safety and security of the travelling public and would impede the sovereignty and integrity of India as also the security and strategic interests of the State. Thus, the DMRC contended that it was exempted under Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (h) of the RTI Act. A further stand was also set forth that in relation to the accident that had taken place, a criminal investigation was pending and the disclosure of the requisite information may hamper the investigation and, hence, the information was withheld under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 4. The CIC, by order dated 18th March, 2010, repelled the submissions of the DMRC and expressed the view that the DMRC is "State" and, therefore, it cannot decline to supply the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act; that the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act could not be held to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or its security and strategic interests; that the disclosure of the information sought is in the larger public interest inasmuch as placing the design of the failed structure in the public domain may spur all the authorities to develop safer design in providing optimal security to the travelling public; that the plea pertaining to investigation by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police was not likely to be adversely affected by the disclosure of the information sought and, therefore, Section 8(1)(h) was not attracted. Being of this view, the Commission directed the DMRC to supply the information as sought for by