92 WP No.3594.2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3594 OF 2023 BALASAHEB SOMA JADHAV VERSUS THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ajinkya Kale h/f Talekar & Associates Advocate for Respondents : Mr. A. S. Shelke ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective sides. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the State Information Commission, Bench at Nashik, whereby the learned State Information Commissioner directed the respondents / University to provide the names of the parties by way of registered post. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a comprehensive application seeking information from the year 2005 pertaining to the agreements to sell and all contractual 2026:BHC-AUG:10004 92 WP No.3594.2023 -2- records executed by University with various contractors. The scope of the information covers essential operational areas including education, extension services, property management, research, and the procurement of seeds, fertilizers, organic supplements, medicines, and construction materials across all departments of the University. 4. It is further contended that the orders passed by both the First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority are in direct contravention of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The counsel argues that the authorities erroneously applied Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, as the information sought, which involves public procurement and institutional contracts, does not fall under the specific exemptions related to commercial confidence or trade secrets contemplated by that section. 5. Consequently, the petitioner maintains that the State Information Commissioner failed to exercise proper jurisdiction by upholding these denials. Since the requested information does not meet the criteria for exemption and serves a broader public interest in transparency, the counsel submits that the appeal ought to have been allowed and the University directed to disclose the relevant records. 92 WP No.3594.2023 -3- 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s application is a targeted attempt to harass University officials rather than a bona fide request for information. The counsel highlights that the petitioner has sought an exhaustive volume of records spanning nearly two decades, dating back to 2005, which places an undue burden on the administrative resources of the institution. It is further contended that the requested documents include sensitive and confidential details pertaining to the University’s commercial activities. The counsel argues that disclosing full contractual specifics would compromise commercial confidence and trade secrets. Therefore, it is submitted that the State Information Commissioner acted correctly by restricting the disclosure to only the names of the concerned parties, thereby balancing transparency with the protection of confidential institutional data. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the RTI application (Exhibit D) which is at page No. 22 of the petition, it is observed that the petitioner sought an exhaustive range of information dating back to the year 2005 across all University departments. A review of the request reveals that the data sought 92 WP No.3594.2023 -4- includes sensitive commercial details and the intricacies of agreements executed between the University and various contractors. In view of this, the State Information Commissioner correctly invoked Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which protects information of commercial confidence. The Commission’s decision to provide only the names of the parties, rather than the complete agreements to sell and other confidential data, is found to be a balanced and legally sound approach. 8. Admittedly, upon a combined reading of the application and the provisions of Section 8(1)(d), it is clear that the information sought contains proprietary commercial details that the University is entitled to protect. Furthermore, the Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner requested records spanning nearly two decades (since 2005), which imposes an unreasonable administrative burden. Considering that the disclosure of such detailed contractual agreements could prejudice the commercial interests of the University and its third- party contractors, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the State Information Commissioner. 92 WP No.3594.2023 -5- 9. In view of the aforementioned observations, I find that the State Information Commissioner acted within its jurisdiction and correctly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Consequently, I find no merit in the present challenge and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Omkar Joshi