BALASAHEB SOMA JADHAVversusTHE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:10004



                                                                    92 WP No.3594.2023
                                                   -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 3594 OF 2023

                                    BALASAHEB SOMA JADHAV
                                              VERSUS
                THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR
                                ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER
                                                  ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ajinkya Kale h/f Talekar & Associates
              Advocate for Respondents : Mr. A. S. Shelke
                                                  ...

                                 CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     Date : 4th March, 2026

              PER COURT :-


              1.          Heard learned counsel for respective sides.



              2.          The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order

              dated 19.10.2022 passed by the State Information Commission, Bench

              at Nashik, whereby the learned State Information Commissioner

              directed the respondents / University to provide the names of the

              parties by way of registered post.



              3.          The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

              petitioner filed a comprehensive application seeking information from

              the year 2005 pertaining to the agreements to sell and all contractual
                                                      92 WP No.3594.2023
                                   -2-

records executed by University with various contractors. The scope of

the information covers essential operational areas including education,

extension   services,   property   management,     research,   and      the

procurement of seeds, fertilizers, organic supplements, medicines, and

construction materials across all departments of the University.



4.          It is further contended that the orders passed by both the

First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority are in

direct contravention of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The counsel

argues that the authorities erroneously applied Section 8(1)(d) of the

Act, as the information sought, which involves public procurement and

institutional contracts, does not fall under the specific exemptions

related to commercial confidence or trade secrets contemplated by that

section.



5.          Consequently, the petitioner maintains that the State

Information Commissioner failed to exercise proper jurisdiction by

upholding these denials. Since the requested information does not meet

the criteria for exemption and serves a broader public interest in

transparency, the counsel submits that the appeal ought to have been

allowed and the University directed to disclose the relevant records.
                                                        92 WP No.3594.2023
                                    -3-




6.           Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the petitioner’s application is a targeted attempt to harass

University officials rather than a bona fide request for information. The

counsel highlights that the petitioner has sought an exhaustive volume

of records spanning nearly two decades, dating back to 2005, which

places an undue burden on the administrative resources of the

institution. It is further contended that the requested documents include

sensitive and confidential details pertaining to the University’s

commercial    activities.   The   counsel   argues   that   disclosing   full

contractual specifics would compromise commercial confidence and

trade secrets. Therefore, it is submitted that the State Information

Commissioner acted correctly by restricting the disclosure to only the

names of the concerned parties, thereby balancing transparency with

the protection of confidential institutional data.



7.           Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and upon

perusal of the RTI application (Exhibit D) which is at page No. 22 of the

petition, it is observed that the petitioner sought an exhaustive range of

information dating back to the year 2005 across all University

departments. A review of the request reveals that the data sought
                                                      92 WP No.3594.2023
                                   -4-

includes sensitive commercial details and the intricacies of agreements

executed between the University and various contractors. In view of

this, the State Information Commissioner correctly invoked Section 8(1)

(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which protects information of

commercial confidence. The Commission’s decision to provide only the

names of the parties, rather than the complete agreements to sell and

other confidential data, is found to be a balanced and legally sound

approach.



8.          Admittedly, upon a combined reading of the application

and the provisions of Section 8(1)(d), it is clear that the information

sought contains proprietary commercial details that the University is

entitled to protect. Furthermore, the Court takes note of the fact that

the petitioner requested records spanning nearly two decades (since

2005),   which   imposes an unreasonable administrative          burden.

Considering that the disclosure of such detailed contractual agreements

could prejudice the commercial interests of the University and its third-

party contractors, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order.

Consequently, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the

State Information Commissioner.
                                                              92 WP No.3594.2023
                                      -5-

9.             In view of the aforementioned observations, I find that the

State Information Commissioner acted within its jurisdiction and

correctly     dismissed   the    appeal      preferred   by     the   petitioner.

Consequently, I find no merit in the present challenge and find no

reason to interfere with the impugned order.



10.            The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to

costs.



11.            Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




                                            (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)



Omkar Joshi