Madras HC directs Tasmac to explain reason behind exemption from RTI
Chennai, July 19 (IANS) The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the state liquor body Tasmac to explain the rationale behind seeking exemption from RTI on the quantum of liquor procured by it from various private breweries and distilleries and the prices at which these spirits were supplied to the corporation.
The first division bench of the Madras High Court represented by Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Adikesavalu wanted Additional Advocate General J. Raveendran to put before the court any judgment to seek the benefit of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act that could be relied upon by Tasmac.
The AAG requested time for this and the court adjourned for two weeks a writ appeal preferred by the Tasmac MD against a single judge order in March to disclose this information. The AAG argued that the prices at which Tasmac procures liquor from various distilleries and the quantum of such procurement was a matter of commercial confidence.
Raveendran said that disclosing such details to a RTI applicant would affect the dealings between the corporation and the private breweries and distilleries.
He also contended that the single judge of the Madras High Court had erred in passing a judgment in favour of the RTI applicant, M. Loganathan.
The division bench of the Madras High Court asked how the price and quantum of liquor procured by Tasmac could be kept a secret after the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act of 1998. To this the AAG responded that Tasmac does not invite tenders for procurement of liquor and that the spirits were purchased directly from breweries and distilleries.
Justice Adikesavalu asked the AAG the provision of the 1998 RTI Act that exempts Tasmac from the law. The Chief Justice also asked the AAG how the pricing and quantum of liquor falls under Commercial Confidence. The Chief Justice said that Tasmac was the sole wholesale as well as retail seller of liquor in Tamil Nadu and there was no competition from any other player.
The AAG stated that Tasmac was obligated to inform the private breweries and distilleries that it would not disclose the price and quantum of liquor it procured from them. He said that Tasmac may not be forced to disclose such information and sought a fortnight’s time to place before the court some of the judgments that could come in support of the corporation.
The write petition was filed before the division bench of the Madras High Court after the single bench judge of the court headed by Justice SM Subramanian passed an order on a petition filed by M. Loganathan that there was absolutely no commercial confidence involved in the matter.
The single bench judge had also ordered Tasmac to disclose details to RTI applicants in the larger public interest and also transparency.