The Commandant 510 Abw & Anr vs Shri Prem Kumar Mutreja

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9278/2016, CM APPL. 37442/2016, CM APPL.
27897/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Date of Decision: 07.05.2026
THE COMMANDANT 510 ABW & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh,
Advocates.

versus

SHRI PREM KUMAR MUTREJA .....Respondent


Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioners in the instant writ petition have prayed for quashing of
the impugned order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Central Information
Commission [ CIC ] in File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/003959/DP, whereby the
Respondent-authority has directed disclosure of information pertaining to
supply orders and procurement details relating to the establishments
functioning under the Ministry of Defence.
2. The facts of the case would show that the Petitioner No.1, namely The
Commandant 510 Army Base Workshop, Meerut Cantt., is one of the
establishments functioning under the Ministry of Defence i.e. Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 1 of 11

No.2 herein, and is engaged in the overhaul and maintenance of various
military and defence equipments to be utilized by the defence personnel for
security and defence of the country.
3. The Petitioners averred that the Respondent herein had filed multiple
applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [ RTI Act ] on
06.01.2014 seeking disclosure of procurement related records maintained by
Petitioner No.1. It is averred that the Respondent sought photocopies of
Supply Orders [ SO ] alongwith Comparative Statements of Tenders [CST]
placed during the financial year 2012 - 2013 till the date of filing of the
applications with M/s Crystal Precision Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent had also
sought similar information pertaining to procurement made during the
financial year 2012 - 2013 and 2013 - till the date of filing of the
applications, from firms namely M/s S.D. Enterprises, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi and M/s Jindal Industrial Corporation, Delhi.

4. The Petitioners further averred that the Respondent herein on
06.01.2014 filed another application under RTI Act seeking photocopies of
SO alongwith CST placed by Petitioner No.1 with M/s Om Industries,
Meerut during the financial year 2012 – 2013 and 2013-till the date of filing
of the applications, against LPR, LLR and indigenization. The Respondent
had further sought details pertaining to procurement made from M/s Shivam
Trader, Meerut against LPR No. CES/EXP/15/MOS/ANCY/100981 dated
10.09.2010 for supply of M.S. Sheet 1.6 MM thick. It is further stated that,
the Respondent also sought list of registered dealers alongwith their postal
addresses from the office of the Central Public Information Officer,
Headquarters 510 Army Base Workshop, Meerut Cantt., Meerut [ CPIO ].
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 2 of 11

5. It is further the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent herein is
primarily associated with supply of spares pertaining only to “ZU-23 MM
Twin Barrel Gun” systems. According to the Petitioners, by filing multiple
applications under the RTI Act, the Respondent is attempting to obtain
information pertaining to procurement and overhaul of various sensitive
military and defence equipments with which the Respondent was never
directly concerned or associated. The Petitioners averred that the
information sought relates to defence equipments and weapon systems of
strategic importance, disclosure whereof may adversely affect the security
and defence interests of the country.

6. The Petitioners further submits that the information sought by the
Respondent pertains to procurement and supply particulars of sensitive
military equipments and disclosure thereof may adversely affect operational
preparedness and security interests of the country. According to the
Petitioners, the Respondent, despite being associated only with supply of
limited category spares, has sought extensive information relating to defence
procurement and supply chains and Respondent has been filing multiple RTI
applications seeking large scale procurement details from various vendors
and, according to the Petitioners, the nature and pattern of information
sought do not appear to be bona fide .

7. The Petitioners averred that in pursuant to the aforesaid applications
preferred by the Respondent, the CPIO vide communication dated
10.03.2014, declined disclosure of the information sought, by invoking
Sections 8(1) and 11 of the RTI Act. The Petitioners state that the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 3 of 11

Respondent was informed that the information sought pertained to
commercially sensitive matters involving third-party interests and
confidentiality and was, therefore, exempt from disclosure under the
provisions of the RTI Act.

8. It is further the case of the Petitioners that assailing the aforesaid
decision of the CPIO, the Respondent herein preferred a statutory appeal
dated 07.04.2014 before the First Appellate Authority under the provisions
of the RTI Act. The Petitioners state that upon due consideration of the
matter, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2014,
wherein it was observed that requisite notices had already been issued to the
concerned third parties and the request for disclosure was adjudicated upon
after taking into consideration the responses received from such third
parties. It is further stated that copies of the replies furnished by the
concerned third parties were also made available to the Respondent herein
by the First Appellate Authority.

9. The Petitioners further submits that being aggrieved by the rejection
of the statutory appeal, the Respondent herein approached the CIC by
preferring a second appeal dated 31.05.2014 under the provisions of the RTI
Act. According to the Petitioners, learned CIC vide impugned order dated
12.08.2016, directed disclosure of copies of the supply orders pertaining to
the five firms referred to in the RTI applications.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that
the impugned order passed by the CIC is wholly unsustainable in law, being
contrary to the scheme and object of Section 8 of the RTI Act. He submitted
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 4 of 11

that the information sought by the Respondent squarely falls within the
exempted categories contemplated under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of RTI
Act and, therefore, no direction for disclosure thereof could have been
issued by the CIC. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 8(2) of
the RTI Act does not confer any independent power or jurisdiction upon the
CIC to direct disclosure of information otherwise protected under Section
8(1) of RTI Act and that the discretion to disclose such information in larger
public interest vests exclusively with the concerned public authority.
According to him, the CIC, while passing the impugned order directing
disclosure of supply orders pertaining to sensitive defence procurement,
travelled beyond the scope of its statutory jurisdiction and exercised powers
not vested in it under the Act.

11. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is non-speaking
in nature and has been passed mechanically without due appreciation of the
objections and submissions raised on behalf of the CPIO.

12. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused
the record.

14. The short issue which arises for consideration is whether the
impugned order passed by the CIC, allowing the Respondent’s second
appeal directing disclosure of copies of the supply orders pertaining to the
five firms referred to in the RTI applications, violate the principles of natural
justice and contravenes the provisions envisaged under the RTI Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 5 of 11

15. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the order passed by CIC.
The order reads as under:

“Respondent: Maj. Shelly, CPIO, 510 Army Base Wksp, Meerut Cantt.
Present through VC.
Appellant stated that he wanted a copy of supply orders in respect of 5
companies mentioned in three RTI applications, all dated 6.1.2014 in
financial years 2013 onwards. He pointed out that supply orders are
given to chosen companies which smacks of corruption. CPIO has
denied information taking refuge under exemption clauses provided in
Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act.
CPIO submitted that information pertained to third parties and they
have not consented to provide the same.
Decision
Commission observes that supply orders of public authority involve
expenditure from Govt. Exchequer the Appellant is justified to know
that details of the same. Information should not have been denied
invoking exemption clauses under Section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act.
Commission directs the CPIO to provide copies of supply orders in
respect of 5 companies mentioned in the RTI applications (3) to the
Appellant without charging prescribed fees within 15 days of receipt
of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ”

16. A bare perusal of the said order would indicate that while directing
disclosure of the information sought by the Respondent, the CIC has neither
dealt with nor assigned any cogent reasons for rejecting the objections raised
by the Petitioners under Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) and 11 of the RTI Act. The
order further does not reflect any independent consideration with respect to
the plea of confidentiality, commercial sensitivity and national security
raised on behalf of the Petitioners.

17. At this stage, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 6 of 11

1
Court in ICAI Vs. Shaunak H. Satya wherein the Court, while dealing with
the scope and ambit of Section 8 of the RTI Act, observed that the
exemptions contemplated under Section 8 of the RTI Act are intended to
protect equally important public interests and are required to be construed in
a practical manner so as to maintain a balance between transparency and
preservation of protected interests. It is further held that even in cases where
exempted information is directed to be disclosed on the ground of larger
public interest, the competent authority is under an obligation to record
reasons justifying such disclosure. Para 25 and 26 of the said decision read
as under:-
25. Therefore, when Section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed,
it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an
equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the
fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals. Therefore, in dealing with
information not falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authorities
under the RTI Act will not read the exemptions in Section 8 in a restrictive
manner but in a practical manner so that the other public interests are preserved
and the RTI Act attains a fine balance between its goal of attaining transparency
of information and safeguarding the other public interests.

26. Among the ten categories of information which are exempted from disclosure
under Section 8 of the RTI Act, six categories which are described in clauses (a),
(b), (c), (f), (g) and (h) carry absolute exemption. Information enumerated in
clauses (d), (e) and (j) on the other hand get only conditional exemption, that is,
the exemption is subject to the overriding power of the competent authority under
the RTI Act in larger public interest, to direct disclosure of such information. The
information referred to in clause (i) relates to an exemption for a specific period,
with an obligation to make the said information public after such period. The
information relating to intellectual property and the information available to
persons in their fiduciary relationship, referred to in clauses (d) and (e) of
Section 8(1) do not enjoy absolute exemption. Though exempted, if the
competent authority under the Act is satisfied that larger public interest
warrants disclosure of such information, such information will have to be

1
(2011) 8 SCC 781
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 7 of 11

disclosed. It is needless to say that the competent authority will have to record
reasons for holding that an exempted information should be disclosed in larger
public interest .
[Emphasis supplied]


18. A similar view came to be reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bihar
2
Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi , wherein it is
observed that the exemptions contemplated under Section 8 of the RTI Act
are statutory protections which ordinarily must operate as a rule and
disclosure thereof can be directed only in exceptional circumstances upon
recording due satisfaction regarding existence of larger public interest. It is
further emphasized that directions for disclosure of protected information
cannot be issued in a mechanical manner and that where the information is
held in fiduciary capacity or pertains to matters affecting confidentiality and
security interests, the competent authority is required to record cogent
reasons before directing disclosure. Para 21 of the said judgment read as
under:-
21. Section 8(1)(e) provides an exemption from furnishing of information, if the
information available to a person is in his fiduciary relationship unless the
competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information. In terms of Section 8(1)(g), the public authority
is not obliged to furnish any such,
“information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical
safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance
given in confidence for law enforcement and security purposes.”
If the public authority concerned holds the information in fiduciary relationship,
then the obligation to furnish information is obliterated. But if the competent
authority is still satisfied that in the larger public interest, despite such
objection, the information should be furnished, it may so direct the public
authority. The term “fiduciary” refers to a person having a duty to act for the
benefit of another, showing good faith and candour, where such other person

2
(2012) 13 SCC 61
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 8 of 11

reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the
duty. The term “fiduciary relationship” is used to describe a situation or
transaction where one person places complete confidence in another person in
regard to his affairs, business or transactions. This aspect has been discussed in
some detail in the judgment of this Court in CBSE case [CBSE v. Aditya
Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497] . Section 8(1)(e), therefore, carves out a
protection in favour of a person who possesses information in his fiduciary
relationship. This protection can be negated by the competent authority where
larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, in which
case, the authority is expected to record reasons for its satisfaction. Another
very significant provision of the Act is Section 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision,
information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has
no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual would fall within the
exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be
understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a
rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for
reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public
interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a
mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to
disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provisions .
All information which has come to the notice of or on record of a person holding
fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such information
would not have been provided to that authority, would normally need to be
protected and would not be open to disclosure keeping the higher standards of
integrity and confidentiality of such relationship. Such exemption would be
available to such authority or department.
[ Emphasis supplied ]

19. In light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court,
this Court is of the view that while directing disclosure of the information
sought by the Respondent, the learned CIC was required to independently
consider the objections raised by the Petitioners with respect to
confidentiality, commercial sensitivity and security implications flowing
from such disclosure with the test of larger public interest. The impugned
order, however, does not reflect any discussion with regard to the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 9 of 11

applicability of the exemptions claimed by the Petitioners under Sections
8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) and 11 of the RTI Act, nor does it indicate any reasons
having been recorded as to why the larger public interest warranted
disclosure of the information sought.

20. Another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that despite
service, none has appeared on behalf of the Respondent which indicates that
the RTI applicant has lost interest in the information and therefore no
representation is made on his behalf. Consequently, the submissions
advanced on behalf of the Petitioners have remained uncontroverted.

21. The Court vide order dated 20.10.2016, had stayed the operation of
the impugned order taking into consideration the submissions advanced on
behalf of the Petitioners that the information sought by the Respondent
pertained to procurement and installation of sensitive defence equipments,
disclosure whereof may have bearing on matters of confidentiality and
national security.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found, that the impugned
order dated 12.08.2016 suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as
the learned CIC proceeded to direct disclosure of the information sought
without recording any cogent findings with respect to the objections raised
by the Petitioners under Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) and 11 of the RTI Act.

23. The Court finds that the impugned order is conspicuously silent on the
issue of confidentiality and security implications arising from disclosure of
the procurement details pertaining to sensitive defence equipments. In
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 10 of 11

absence of any substantive reasoning or adequate justification warranting
such disclosure, the impugned order could not have been passed, particularly
when the information sought pertains to matters having direct bearing on
safety and security interest of the nation.

24. Accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated
12.08.2016 passed by the CIC is hereby set aside. However, liberty is
granted to the Respondent to seek restoration of the second appeal before the
CIC and, if such an application is preferred, the CIC shall consider and
decide the same afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and
speaking order.

25. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 7, 2026
tr/ sa
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
10:21:20
Page 11 of 11