{"id":56459,"date":"2011-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-03T02:15:51","modified_gmt":"2015-06-02T20:45:51","slug":"ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Shonkh Technology … vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Shonkh Technology … vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                            *1*                           wp.2912.3137.11.sxw\n\n\n    kps\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.2912 OF 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n          M\/s Shonkh Technology International Ltd.,   )\n          a Company registered and incorporated       )\n          under the provisions of Companies Act,      )\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n          1956, 6, Apollo House, First Floor,         )\n          82\/84, B.S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001.      )\n          Through its Authorised Signatory            )\n          Shri Nilesh Khobragade.                     )     ..Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n               -Versus-        \n          1.   State Information Commission,          )\n               Maharashtra-Konkan Region,             )\n                              \n               Konkan Bhawan, Belapur,                )\n               Navi Mumbai.                           )\n\n          2.   Appellate Authority,                   )\n               Joint Transport Commissioner           )\n            \n\n\n               (Computer), Office of the Transport    )\n               Commissioner, 3rd and 4th Floor,       )\n         \n\n\n\n               Administrative Building,               )\n               Near Dr.Ambedkar Garden,               )\n               Government Colony, Bandra (East),      )\n               Mumbai-400051.                         )\n\n\n\n\n\n          3.   Public Information Officer,            )\n               Deputy Transport Commissioner          )\n               (Computer), Office of the Transport    )\n               Commissioner, 3rd and 4th Floor,       )\n\n\n\n\n\n               Administrative Building,               )\n               Near Dr.Ambedkar Garden,               )\n               Government Colony, Bandra (East),      )\n               Mumbai-400051.                         )\n\n          4.   Shri Sanjay S\/o Anant Bhole,           )\n               Aged adult, Occupation : Nil,          )\n               resident of 4, Prayatna Co-operative   )\n               Housing Society, Nehru Road,           )\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::\n                                        *2*                           wp.2912.3137.11.sxw\n\n\n          Near Jalaram Mandir, Thakurli,         )\n          Dombiwali (East), District : Thane.    )     ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                                 ALONG WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                      WRIT PETITION NO.3137 OF 2011\n\n    M\/s United Telecom Limited,                  )\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n    6-3-649\/5, 2nd Floor, Chakkilam House,       )\n    Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082.                )     ..Petitioner\n\n          -Versus-\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    1.    The State Information Commission,\n                           ig                    )\n          Maharashtra-Konkan Region,             )\n          Konkan Bhavan, Belapur,                )\n          Navi Mumbai-400614.                    )\n                         \n    2.    The Appellate Authority,               )\n          Joint Transport Commissioner           )\n          (Computerisation), Office of the       )\n      \n\n          Transport Commissioner, 3rd and 4th    )\n          Floor, Administrative Building,        )\n   \n\n\n\n          Near Dr.Ambedkar Garden,               )\n          Government Colony, Bandra (East),      )\n          Mumbai-400051.                         )\n\n\n\n\n\n    3.    Public Information Officer,            )\n          Deputy Transport Commissioner          )\n          (Computer), Office of the Transport    )\n          Commissioner, 3rd and 4th Floor,       )\n          Administrative Building,               )\n\n\n\n\n\n          Near Dr.Ambedkar Garden,               )\n          Government Colony, Bandra (East),      )\n          Mumbai-400051.                         )\n\n    4.    M\/s Shonkh Technologies                )\n          International Ltd.,                    )\n          6, Apollo House, First Floor,          )\n          82\/84, Bombay Sanchar Marg,            )\n          Fort, Mumbai-400001.                   )\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::\n                                              *3*                           wp.2912.3137.11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n    5.     Shri Sanjay S\/o Anant Bhole,               )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n           Aged adult,                                )\n           resident of 4, Prayatna Co-operative       )\n           Housing Society, Nehru Road,               )\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n           Near Jalaram Mandir, Thakurli,             )\n           Dombiwali (East), District : Thane.        )      ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                                        ..........\n    Mr.Sunil Manohar a\/w Mr.Deven Chauhan i\/b F.F. & Associates, for the \n    Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2912\/2011.\n    Ms.Jayashri P. Akolkar, for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3137\/2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Mr.Sanjay Anant Bhole, the Respondent No.4 in WP No.2912\/2011 and \n    No.5 in WP No.3137\/2011, present in person.\n                              ig        ..........\n                            \n                                        CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.\n                                     \n                                        Reserved on : 17th June, 2011\n                                        Pronounced on : 01st July, 2011.\n       \n    \n\n\n\n    JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    1             These   Writ   Petitions   were   heard   together.   Since   common
\n    arguments were canvassed and common questions are involved, they are <\/p>\n
    disposed of by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    2             Rule.   The   Respondents   waive   service.   By   consent,   heard
\n    forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    3             The petitions impugn the orders dated 23.03.2011 passed by
\n    the State Information Commissioner, Konkan Region. The proceedings are
\n    under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short referred to
\n    as “RTI Act”).\n<\/p>\n
    4             The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2912\/2011 is a company
\n    incorporated   and   registered   under   the   Indian   Companies   Act,   1956.   It <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  *4*                            wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    functions   as   a   service   provider   to   the   Government   of   Maharashtra.   It
\n    provides   the   facility   of   Smart   Card   based   Registration   Certificate.   It   is <\/p>\n
    stated   that   considering   the   need   for   computerization,   the   Government <\/p>\n
    switched over to the latest technology in it’s various departments. In the
\n    transport   sector,   the   Government   aimed   at   modernizing   the   Regional
\n    Transport   Offices   and   introduced   a   policy   to   computerize   the   Regional <\/p>\n
    Transport   Offices   which   was   aimed   at   streamlining   the   entire   process
\n    undertaken at these offices and obviously to make the functions of these
\n    Regional Transport Offices efficient, prompt and easy. In this backdrop, <\/p>\n
    the Central Government took a policy decision to introduce “Smart Cards”\n<\/p>\n
    with Micro Processor Chip and it was decided to permit the use of Smart
\n    Cards for issuing registration  certificates  in electronic form. It is  stated <\/p>\n
    that this Micro Processor Chip based Smart Card obviously has various
\n    advantages over the regular paper based registration books. A reference is
\n    made to the Central Government’s guidelines issued on 17.10.2001. The <\/p>\n
    implementation of this policy required amendments to the Motor Vehicles <\/p>\n
    Act and Rules and therefore, the amendments were made on 31.05.2002
\n    and Rule 2(s) was added to define the term “Smart Card”. It is stated that
\n    the registration certificate is now issued to the motor vehicle owners in <\/p>\n
    the form of Smart Cards and thereafter, several provisions of the Motor
\n    Vehicles Act have been referred to. It was submitted that the Government
\n    of   Maharashtra   floated   a   PAN   India   tender   for   appointing   a   service <\/p>\n
    provider to comply with the requirement of issuance of “Smart Cards”.
\n    The   Petitioner   participated   in   the   tender   process   and   was   declared
\n    successful. A contract dated 30.11.2002 came to be executed. It is stated
\n    that   this   is   not   an   ordinary   contract,   but   it   is   outcome   of   exhaustive
\n    statutory project. The project which the Petitioner is implementing must
\n    be   seen   in   the   backdrop   of   the   policy   decision   of   the   Government   to <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              *5*                           wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    provide a more standardized and tamper proof registration of the vehicles.
\n    The policy of the Government is to adopt a technology which will prevent <\/p>\n
    tampering  of registration books by the anti-social elements. It is stated <\/p>\n
    that   this   contract   is   confidential   in   nature.   The   project   has   been
\n    undertaken   by   the   Petitioner,   but   attempts   are   made   to   exploit   the
\n    Petitioner for personal gains by various unscrupulous elements. The RTI <\/p>\n
    Act, according to the Petitioner, does not give an absolute right to a person
\n    to   obtain   any   information   and   it   is,   therefore,   contended   that   the
\n    Respondent No.4’s attemp to obtain the information must be seen in this <\/p>\n
    light.\n<\/p>\n
    5<\/span><\/p>\n
                  The Respondent No.4 was desirous of obtaining a copy of the
\n    agreement   and   made   an   application   in   the   prescribed   format   to   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent No.3 on 21.01.2010. Thereafter, there is response to the said
\n    application by the Respondent No.3, namely, Public Information Officer
\n    cum   Deputy   Transport   Commissioner   (Computer)   in   the   office   of   the <\/p>\n
    Transport   Commissioner.   The   Respondent   No.3   refused   to   provide   the <\/p>\n
    information sought in the application by taking recourse to Section 8(1)\n<\/p>\n
    (d) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Respondent No.3 passed
\n    on   29.01.2010,   the   Respondent   No.4   preferred   an   appeal   and   the <\/p>\n
    Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal on 31.03.2010 and he was also
\n    of the opinion that the disclosure of the information would be violative of
\n    Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He agreed with the views of the authority <\/p>\n
    below that clause 22(2) of the agreement gives a confidentiality status to
\n    the said agreement and therefore, no information contained therein could
\n    be   made   available   to   the   Respondent   No.4.   Thus,   agreeing   with   the
\n    Petitioner, this information was denied.\n<\/p>\n
    6             The   Respondent   No.4   preferred   an   appeal   under   Section
\n    19(3) of the RTI Act before the Respondent No.1. The appeal was taken <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                *6*                             wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    up on 15.05.2010 and an interim-order was made and the matter was
\n    remanded   to   the   first   Appellate   Authority.   Pursuant   to   this   order   of <\/p>\n
    remand,   the   Respondent   No.2   reheard   the   matter   and   maintained   its <\/p>\n
    earlier opinion and disallowed the request for information made by the
\n    Respondent No.4. On receipt of this report from the Respondent No.2, the
\n    Respondent No.1 heard the matter and by the impugned order, directed <\/p>\n
    the   Respondent   No.3   to   give   copies   of   the   Agreements   of   Transport
\n    Department with the Petitioners, to the Respondent No.4 within a period
\n    of  one month from  the  date  of  receipt of  the  decision. It is  this  order <\/p>\n
    which is challenged in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
    7<\/span><\/p>\n
                   Mr.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in
\n    Writ   Petition   No.2912\/2011,   invited   my   attention   to   the   RTI   Act   and <\/p>\n
    submitted that while providing information is the rule under the Act, but
\n    at   the   same   time,   there   are   several   exceptions.   Thus,   the   right   to
\n    information   guaranteed   by   the   statute   is   subject   to   certain   provisions <\/p>\n
    which provide for exemptions from disclosure. Inviting my attention to <\/p>\n
    Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, Mr.Manohar submits that the
\n    information, disclosure of which, leads to incitement of an offence or the
\n    information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual <\/p>\n
    property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a
\n    third   party,   should   not   be   given,   unless   the   competent   authority   is
\n    satisfied   that   larger   public   interest   warrants   the   disclosure   of   such <\/p>\n
    information.   Criticizing   the   order   passed   by   the   Respondent   No.1,
\n    Mr.Manohar submits that the Respondent No.1 committed a serious error
\n    in law while passing the impugned order. Mr.Manohar submits that the
\n    Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in (2005) 1
\n    SCC 679 (Association of Registration Plates v\/s Union of India and others),
\n    had   issued   directives   that   the   registration   of   motor   vehicles   should   be <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              *7*                            wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    safety oriented and there should not be any scope for unscrupulous and
\n    criminal   elements   to   tamper   with   registration   of   the   motor   vehicles.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Manohar submits that in this decision the Honourable Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    has held that all security features for number plates have to be specified
\n    and   they   are   indeed   specified.   The   tender   conditions   are   formulated
\n    keeping   in   mind   public   interest   and   the   aspects   of   high   security.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Manohar submits that the selection of a single manufacturer for the
\n    entire State ensures security. Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court
\n    holds  that multiple manufacturers can brush aside these considerations <\/p>\n
    and confidentiality of public database would be severely compromised. All <\/p>\n
    these submissions have been noted by the Honourable Supreme Court and
\n    they have been upheld. Mr.Manohar, therefore, submits that this matter <\/p>\n
    cannot   be   looked   at   in   the   ordinary   perspective   of   disclosure   of
\n    information  about a  public  contract between the  State  and the  Service
\n    Provider, but the security considerations are impressed upon the same. By <\/p>\n
    directing the disclosure of information as sought by the Respondent No.4, <\/p>\n
    the Respondent No.1 has ignored Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI
\n    Act.\n<\/p>\n
    8             Inviting   my   attention   to   the   application   made   by   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent   No.4,   in   which   query   No.5   deals   with   the   driving   licence
\n    Smart Card and optical Smart Card, registration certificate book, making
\n    contract and details thereof; Mr.Manohar submitted that these details will <\/p>\n
    be disclosed now and therefore, public interest is in jeopardy and in any
\n    event security aspects have not been given serious consideration. For all
\n    these reasons, the impugned order be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    9             Mr.Manohar   has   further   invited   my   attention   to   the   order
\n    passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
\n    Delhi in Revision Petition Nos.598\/2009 and 599\/2009 in case of the very <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 *8*                            wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    same Petitioner wherein the Commission observed that the character of
\n    the document is confidential in nature. Therefore, when reliance is placed <\/p>\n
    by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on this very provision of <\/p>\n
    the   RTI   Act   to   deny   the   information   and   the   reasons   are   given,   then,
\n    directing the State to provide the copies of such vital documents to the
\n    Respondent No.4, in the present case, is contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n
    10             On  the  other  hand, the  Respondent No.4 who  appeared in
\n    person in each of these Writ Petitions, invited my attention to his written
\n    reply and submitted that he has not done anything so as to violate the <\/p>\n
    letter and spirit of the RTI Act. All that he sought was some information <\/p>\n
    and furnishing of copies of the agreement. There is nothing confidential in
\n    the agreement. He submits that a copy of the contract executed by the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner with the Delhi Government has been provided by the office of
\n    the Transport Commissioner, Delhi. If the RTI Act is applicable to whole of
\n    India, then, one commissionerate cannot take stand contrary to other. This <\/p>\n
    is   not   a   case   where   public   interest   demands   withholding   of   the <\/p>\n
    information, rather it mandates disclosure of such information. He points
\n    out that by furnishing a copy of this agreement, there is no disclosure of
\n    confidential   information  or   secrets,  but  larger   public  interest  would  be <\/p>\n
    served by the disclosure. The Respondent No.4 points out that because of
\n    the scheme devised by the Regional Transport Offices across the country,
\n    huge profits and financial gains have been amassed by private contractors.\n<\/p>\n
    For   all   these   reasons   and   for   not   any   personal   gain   or   benefit,   the
\n    information was sought and the information has been rightly directed to
\n    be provided. Therefore, the Respondent No.4 prays for dismissal of the
\n    petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    11             With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the
\n    Petitioners,   I   have   perused   the   petitions   and   annexures   thereto   and <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 *9*                            wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    particularly   the   impugned   orders.   It   is   common   ground   that   the
\n    Respondent  No.4  has  sought information   on   five  points   relating   to the <\/p>\n
    driving  licence smart cards  and the  registration  certificate  smart cards.\n<\/p>\n
    The last point, on which the information was sought, is in relation to the
\n    agreements with private contractor. The Public Information  Officer and
\n    the   Deputy   Transport   Commissioner   (Computerization)   informed   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent No.4 that the agreement entered into by the Department with
\n    the   third   parties   for   providing   the   driving   licence   smart   cards,   optical
\n    smart cards and registration book smart cards, cannot be provided as it is <\/p>\n
    governed by Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. This view has been upheld by <\/p>\n
    the Joint Transport Commissioner which is the first Appellate Authority,
\n    but reversed by the State Information Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
    12             The   reasoning   of   the   State   Information   Commissioner   has
\n    been criticized together with this approach of setting out clauses of the
\n    agreement in relation to which the information was sought and a copy of <\/p>\n
    which was also requested to be furnished. While not commenting on this <\/p>\n
    course and may be the same was avoidable, yet the ultimate finding and
\n    conclusion of the State Information Commissioner cannot be said to be
\n    contrary to the RTI Act. The RTI Act is an Act to provide for setting out the <\/p>\n
    practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to
\n    information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote
\n    transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.\n<\/p>\n
    The   preamble   of   the   RTI   Act   itself   refers   to   this   aspect   and   the
\n    constitutional principles enshrined in several articles of the Constitution.
\n    It is very clearly postulated that democracy requires an informed citizenry
\n    and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also
\n    to   contain   corruption   and   to   hold   the   Governments   and   their
\n    instrumentalities   accountable   to   the   governed.   The   revelation   of <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                *10*                             wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    information   in   actual   practice   is   likely   to   conflict   with   other   public
\n    interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use <\/p>\n
    of   limited   fiscal   resources   and   the   preservation   of   confidentiality   of <\/p>\n
    sensitive   information.   Therefore,   the   RTI   Act   seeks   to   harmonize   these
\n    conflicting interests while preserving the paramount nature of democratic
\n    ideals. The definitions and particularly of the term “right to information”\n<\/p>\n
    defined in Section 2(j) is relevant. By section 3, all citizens have the right
\n    to information subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. The obligations of
\n    the public authorities are set out by Section 4 and Section 5 provides for <\/p>\n
    designation of the Public Information Officers. The request for obtaining <\/p>\n
    the information is to be made in terms of Section 6 and the disposal of the
\n    request   is   to   be   made   in   terms   of   Section   7.   Then   comes   Section   8, <\/p>\n
    relevant portion, namely, 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
           “8.     Exemption from disclosure of information:-
\n           (1)     Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   this   Act,   there
\n                   shall be no obligation to give any citizen, —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (a)     information,   disclosure   of   which   would   prejudicially
\n                   affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security,  <\/p>\n
                   strategic,   scientific   or   economic   interests   of   the   State,
\n                   relation  with  foreign  State   or  lead   to  incitement  of   an
\n                   offence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (b)     .....\n\n\n\n\n\n           (c)     .....\n           (d)     information   including   commercial   confidence,   trade  \n<\/pre>\n
                   secrets   or   intellectual   property,   the   disclosure   of   which
\n                   would   harm   the   competitive   position   of   a   third   party,
\n                   unless   the   competent   authority   is   satisfied   that   larger  <\/p>\n
                   public   interest   warrants   the   disclosure   of   such
\n                   information;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (e)     .....\n           (f)     .....\n           (g)     .......\n           (h)     .......\n           (i)     .......\n           (j)     .......\n<\/pre>\n
                   Provided that the information which cannot be denied to  <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                *11*                            wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
                   the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied
\n                   to any person.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13             I am not in agreement with Mr.Manohar that the absence of <\/p>\n
    the consideration of larger public interest in clause (a) of sub-section (1)
\n    of Section 8 is a material and relevant aspect in this matter. This is not a
\n    case where clause (a) has been relied upon by anybody or could be relied <\/p>\n
    upon in the given facts and circumstances. On point No.5, the disclosure
\n    and the information sought was with regard to execution of any contract <\/p>\n
    with   a   private   service   provider   for   providing   the   driving   licence   smart
\n    cards,   optical   smart   cards   and   registration   certificate   smart   cards.   The <\/p>\n
    details   of   such   contracts   and   the   copies   thereof   were   sought   by   the
\n    Respondent   No.4.   By   seeking   such   information   and   without   anything <\/p>\n
    more, a conclusion cannot be reached that this would lead to incitement
\n    of an offence. Therefore, this is not a case where clause (a) was in any
\n    way applicable. The information was not of the nature contemplated in <\/p>\n
    clause (a) at all.\n<\/p>\n
    14             On   the   own   showing   of   the   Petitioner,   clause   (d)   provides
\n    that   the   information   can   be   disclosed   if   the   competent   authority   is
\n    satisfied that larger public interest warrants  such disclosure. Therefore, <\/p>\n
    that clause as admitted by Mr.Manohar is not absolute. It does not say that
\n    the   information   including   commercial   confidence,   trade   secrets   or
\n    intellectual property, the disclosure of which, would harm the competitive <\/p>\n
    position of a third party; cannot be demanded or if demanded, cannot be
\n    disclosed   even   if   larger   public   interest   warrants   the   same.   The   State
\n    Information   Commissioner   has   held   that   the   disclosure   of   both
\n    agreements would not result in disclosure of trade secrets or intellectual
\n    property. His conclusion is that the tenders were for an important work
\n    which affects large number of vehicle owners and drivers of vehicles. The <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                *12*                            wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    agreements have to be entered into for providing a service in the form of
\n    making   of   Smart   Cards   for   registration   of   motor   vehicles   and   driving <\/p>\n
    licences at enhanced fees. Further, the conclusion is that the disclosure of <\/p>\n
    information would enable public scrutiny of the process and contracts and
\n    therefore, it is desirable in larger public interest that the information is
\n    provided.\n<\/p>\n
    15             I am not in agreement with the Petitioners that the conclusion
\n    drawn is in any way contrary to Section 8(1)(d). The agreements may
\n    contain   certain   stipulations,   so   also,   certain   obligations,   but   what   is <\/p>\n
    sought is a copy of the agreement. It is not the case of the Petitioners that <\/p>\n
    larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of this information. They
\n    tried to place the case more on the pedestal of security and safety, so also, <\/p>\n
    confidentiality of interests of those to whom the Smart Cards have been
\n    issued. The information sought is not in relation to the individual Smart
\n    Cards or registration certificates or details thereof. The information sought <\/p>\n
    is in relation to the decision taken and the policy framed for providing the <\/p>\n
    Smart Cards and if the means to provide the same are by inducting private
\n    service providers, then, only details of the agreements executed with such
\n    service providers and the copies thereof have been sought. In my view, <\/p>\n
    there was nothing in the information sought by the Respondent No.4, by
\n    which   commercial   confidence,   trade   secrets   or   intellectual   property   is
\n    being   disclosed,   leave   alone   the   disclosure   of   which   would   harm   the <\/p>\n
    competitive position of a third party or it would lead to incitement of an
\n    offence.   Merely   because   the   details   of   the   service   providers   are   to   be
\n    disclosed and the copies of the agreements would be provided, that does
\n    not mean that their interests are harmed or their competitive position is
\n    affected.   It   has   been   rightly   pointed   out   by   the   Respondent   No.4   that
\n    some other Transport Commissioners have been providing such details for <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                               *13*                            wp.2912.3137.11.sxw<\/p>\n
    the respective territories and States, therefore, there was no need for the
\n    Transport Commissionerate for Maharashtra to withhold this information.\n<\/p>\n
    In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the reasons given by the <\/p>\n
    State Information Commissioner are in any way violative of the provisions
\n    pressed   into   service.   I   am   of   the   opinion   that   the   State   Information
\n    Commissioner has acted in consonance with the object and purpose of the <\/p>\n
    RTI Act and upholding the same, has rightly directed the authorities to
\n    provide the information sought by the Respondent No.4. His order cannot
\n    be said to be vitiated by any error of law or perversity so as to call for <\/p>\n
    interference in writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    16<\/span><\/p>\n
                   Reliance   placed   by   Mr.Manohar   on   the   decision   of   the
\n    National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New   Delhi   is <\/p>\n
    misplaced. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the complaints
\n    of   consumers   with   regard   to   deficiencies   and   defects   in   the   services
\n    rendered   by   dealers\/service   providers.   It   is   in   the   context   of   the <\/p>\n
    allegations in the complaint and defence taken, so also, the ambit and <\/p>\n
    scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that these
\n    observations  will  have  to be  seen. The  RTI Act  has  distinct object  and
\n    purpose   as   narrated   above.   Therefore,   this   decision   cannot   be   of   any <\/p>\n
    assistance to the Petitioners. Equally, careful perusal of the Honourable
\n    Supreme   Court’s   decision   relied   upon,   emphasizes   that   for   safety   and
\n    security,   the   authorities   under   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act   must   devise <\/p>\n
    appropriate   measures.   One   of   these   measures   is   affixation   of   number
\n    plates in peculiar style, marks, issuance of smart cards, etc.. The details of
\n    the   smart   cards   issued   to   individuals   are   not   sought   in   this   case.
\n    Therefore, there is no violation of the rules or the elements of secrecy and
\n    confidentiality   attached   to   the   smart   cards.   Hence,   both   decisions   are
\n    distinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         *14*                          wp.2912.3137.11.sxw\n\n\n    17          In the light of this conclusion, both Writ Petitions fail. Rule is \n    discharged, but without any order as to costs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n    18          At this stage, it is prayed that the ad-interim orders passed by \n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n<\/pre>\n
    this Court be continued so as to enable the Petitioners to challenge this
\n    judgment in a higher court. This request is opposed by the Respondent
\n    No.4. In such circumstances, the request made to continue the ad-interim <\/p>\n
    orders is rejected and particularly, when the information as directed to be
\n    given under the impugned orders is as early as on 23.03.2011<\/p>\n
                           ig                    (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:25:42 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S Shonkh Technology … vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011 Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari *1* wp.2912.3137.11.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2912 OF 2011 M\/s Shonkh Technology International Ltd., ) a Company registered and incorporated ) under the provisions of Companies Act, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Shonkh Technology ... vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Shonkh Technology ... vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-02T20:45:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Shonkh Technology … vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T20:45:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3225,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Shonkh Technology ... vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T20:45:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Shonkh Technology … vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Shonkh Technology ... vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Shonkh Technology ... vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-02T20:45:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Shonkh Technology … vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T20:45:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011"},"wordCount":3225,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011","name":"M\/S Shonkh Technology ... vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T20:45:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shonkh-technology-vs-state-information-commission-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Shonkh Technology … vs State Information Commission on 1 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56459\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}