Approved Building Plan Not 'Personal Information', Can Be Disclosed To RTI Applicant: Kerala High Court

Justice Murali Purushothaman held:

“Once a building plan is approved by the Secretary of the Panchayat, it forms part of the records relating to the affairs of the Panchayat, and a person seeking a copy of such a document shall have the right to obtain the same, unless it is exempted from disclosure… The disclosure of plans that are required to be in the public domain cannot reasonably be regarded as involving commercial confidence or trade secrets, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. The disclosure of a building plan that is available in the public domain does not constitute the disclosure of personal information.”

The Court was considering a writ petition challenging the rejection of an RTI request seeking copies of the approved building plan, issued to Elmecs Multispeciality hospital, Kareelakulangara. The request for copy of the building plan was rejected as the hospital objected to the same on the ground that it might be used against it.

The petitioner's request for copies of the building permit, licences and permits was agreed to be furnished by the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of Pathiyoor Gramapanchayat upon payment of requisite fee.

The petitioner told the Court that the rejection of his request was violative of his statutory right to information guaranteed under the RTI Act. He relied on Ferani Hotels Private Limited v. State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Ors. (2019), wherein the Supreme Court had held that development plans submitted to the Corporation are to be put in the public domain since there is public element involved.

The hospital opposed the plea as well as its maintainability in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. It was argued that the information requested was third-party information and it was sought to settle personal scores due to the personal grudge held by the petitioner against the Managing Director of the hospital.

After hearing the parties, the Court referred to the definition of 'approved plan' under Rule 2(1)(l) of the Kerala Panchayat Rules, 2011 and noted that building plan approved by the Panchayat Secretary is a document available in the public domain.

Referring to Sections 271A and 271B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 dealing with right to information, the Court found that building plan approved by the Panchayat Secretary would be in the public domain and can be sought for by RTI applicant unless exempted from disclosure.

Next, the Court looked at Sections 11 and 8 of the RTI Act dealing respectively with third party information and exemption from disclosure of information. It also referred to Section 6 [Request for obtaining information] and added:

“Section 6 of the Right to Information Act deals with the request for obtaining information and Section 6(2) provides that an applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.”

With respect to the contention regarding alternative remedy, the Court was of the view that the same would not bar it from entertaining a writ petition especially since the denial of information was illegal.

Thus, the Court allowed the plea and directed the SPIO to give a copy of the approved building plan to the petitioner within a month.

Case No: WP(C) No. 17746 of 2026

Case Title: Joseph Palackatharayil Varughese v. The Public Information Officer and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 454

Counsel for the petitioner: Luke J. Chirayil, Jacob Victor, Neha Ramakrishnan, Chithra C. Edadan, Zainudheen P., A.R. Thejas Krishna, Aswanth S. P.

Counsel for the respondents: Enoch David Simon Joel, S.Sreedev, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji, Karan Scaria Abraham, Rinoy Innocent, Aadithya S.R., Rajesh Kumar R

Click to Read/Download Judgment