The Kerala High Court has unequivocally held that a building plan, once approved by a local body, does not fall under the ambit of 'personal information' as defined by the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), and must consequently be disclosed to an applicant. Justice Murali Purushothaman, presiding over the matter, clarified that such approved plans become an integral part of the records pertaining to the affairs of the local body, thereby entering the public domain.
The Court's pronouncement came in the case of Joseph Palackatharayil Varughese v. The Public Information Officer and Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 454), where a writ petition challenged the rejection of an RTI request. The petitioner had sought copies of the approved building plan issued to Elmecs Multispeciality Hospital in Kareelakulangara. While the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of Pathiyoor Gramapanchayat had agreed to furnish copies of the building permit, licenses, and other permits upon payment of the requisite fee, the request for the approved building plan was denied. This denial stemmed from an objection raised by the hospital, which expressed concerns that the plan might be used against it.
Legal Rationale for Disclosure
Justice Purushothaman's ruling underscored that once a building plan receives approval from the Secretary of the Panchayat, it is incorporated into the official records concerning the Panchayat's operations. The Court stated that any individual seeking a copy of such a document possesses a statutory right to obtain it, unless specific exemptions from disclosure are applicable under the RTI Act.
The Court specifically referenced Rule 2(1)(l) of the Kerala Panchayat Rules, 2011, which defines an 'approved plan', noting that a building plan sanctioned by the Panchayat Secretary is inherently a document available in the public domain. Furthermore, Sections 271A and 271B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which address the right to information, were cited to reinforce the position that approved building plans are public documents accessible to RTI applicants, unless explicitly exempted.
Addressing the argument that the information constituted 'third-party information' and was sought due to personal animosity, the Court examined Sections 11 (dealing with third-party information) and 8 (listing exemptions from disclosure) of the RTI Act. The Court determined that the disclosure of plans, which are mandated to be in the public domain, cannot reasonably be construed as involving commercial confidence or trade secrets. It was observed that such disclosure would not harm the competitive position of a third party. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the disclosure of a building plan already in the public domain does not amount to the disclosure of personal information.
The bench also highlighted Section 6 of the RTI Act, which governs requests for information. Specifically, Section 6(2) stipulates that an applicant is not required to provide any reason for requesting information or any personal details beyond those necessary for contact. This provision reinforces the principle of transparency and the applicant's right to information without needing to justify their motives.
Precedent and Final Directive
The petitioner had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ferani Hotels Private Limited v. State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Ors. (2019), where it was held that development plans submitted to a Corporation should be placed in the public domain due to the inherent public element involved. The Kerala High Court's current ruling aligns with this principle, affirming the public nature of approved building plans.
Regarding the hospital's contention about the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal, the Court held that such a remedy would not preclude it from entertaining a writ petition, particularly when the denial of information was deemed illegal. Consequently, the Kerala High Court allowed the petitioner's plea. The State Public Information Officer was directed to provide a copy of the approved building plan to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order.