- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2007 and by the order dated 03.11.2008, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. By the former order, the Administrator, Jaipur Mahila Wholesale Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. had accepted the respondent's appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the Act of 2005', for short) and had directed the petitioner to give copies of the documents asked for by the respondent No.1, Nanag Ram Sharma. By the latter order, the Chief Information Commission has upheld the former order.
(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society. Although the Society is run by a Management Committee, but presently an Administrator (Joint Registrar) has been vested with all the powers of Management Committee. The respondent No.1 had submitted an application on 10/13.08.2007 to the petitioner seeking certain information under the provisions of the Act of 2005. According to the said application, the respondent No.1 has sought information with regard to certain medical bills, with regard to the working of the certain pharmacists in the Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. and with regard to the appointments of certain pharmacists. However, instead of giving the information sought by the respondent No.1, the General Manager of the petitioner declined to give the required information vide letter dated 29.08.2007. The respondent No.1, Nanag Ram Sharma, thereafter filed an appeal before the Administrator. The Administrator passed the order dated 07.11.2007 whereby, as mentioned above, he accepted Nanag Ram's appeal. The petitioner submitted an application before the Administrator for recalling/reviewing of the order dated 07.11.2007. However, the Administrator dismissed the said application on the ground that the power of review does not exist with him. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10528/2007. However, vide order dated 07.01.2008, this Court dismissed the said writ petition ostensibly on the ground that the petitioner could file an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005 before the Rajasthan Information Commission. Consequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Commission. But vide order dated 03.11.2008, the learned Commission dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before this Court : firstly, the RTI Act covers those institutions or authorities which are declared to be "public authority". According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, Co-operative Society, does not fall within the said definition. Hence, it is not covered under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Secondly, since the information sought by Nanag Ram related to trade secret, the protection of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act should be extended to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner cannot be compelled to give copies of the documents sought by the respondent No.1.;