However, in compliance with a previous order of the Court, TASMAC submitted the details sought by Loganathan in a sealed cover.
Justice Subramaniam went through the sealed cover report and held that such information was in no way a trade secret, or a matter of commercial confidence. On the contrary, TASMAC being a State body, was accountable to respond to the petitioner’s query keeping in mind the principle of transparency in the State’s activities, the Court held.
“…therefore, all the details regarding procurement, sale, fixing of rate, brand name cannot be construed as a commercial confidence or brought within the definition of ‘commercial confidence’ under the scope of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.”
Source: Barandbench
