Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in Joseph Palackatharayil Varughese v. The Public Information Officer and Others, W.P.(C) No. 17746 of 2026, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 454, has reaffirmed the broad scope of the right to information by holding that an approved building plan maintained by a local authority does not constitute “personal information” merely because it relates to a privately owned establishment. Justice Murali Purushothaman held that once a building plan is approved by the Secretary of a Panchayat, it becomes part of the official records relating to the affairs of the local body and is ordinarily accessible to an applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, subject to any specific statutory exemption.

The dispute arose from an application submitted by the petitioner seeking information concerning a building belonging to Elmecs Multispeciality Hospital, Kareelakulangara. The petitioner approached the Public Information Officer of Pathiyoor Gramapanchayat seeking copies of the approved building plan, building permit, licences and other related documents. While the Panchayat agreed to furnish certain documents upon payment of the prescribed fee, the request for the approved building plan was not accepted.

The hospital objected to the disclosure of the building plan on the ground that the information related to a third party and could potentially be misused against the institution. The objection resulted in the denial of the requested building plan, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

At the heart of the controversy was the interaction between the citizen’s statutory right to access information held by a public authority and the exemptions contained in the RTI Act. The hospital sought to characterize the approved plan as third-party information and contended that its disclosure could adversely affect the institution. The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the plan had already been scrutinized and approved by the Panchayat and therefore formed part of the public records maintained by the local authority.

The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Ferani Hotels Private Limited v. State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others (2019), where the Supreme Court had recognized the public character of development plans submitted to municipal authorities and held that documents involving a public element could be placed in the public domain.

The case also required the High Court to consider the relevance of Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act. Section 8 contains exemptions from disclosure, while Section 11 provides the procedure to be followed where information relating to a third party is proposed to be disclosed. The mere fact that information relates to a third party, however, does not by itself make the information exempt from disclosure.

The Court further examined the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, particularly Sections 271A and 271B, which recognize the right to information relating to the affairs of Panchayats. The Court also considered the definition of an “approved plan” under Rule 2(1)(l) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011.

The legal question was therefore not simply whether the requested document belonged to a private hospital. The more important question was whether an approved building plan, once submitted to and approved by a statutory local authority, retained the character of private information or became a record associated with the public regulatory functions of that authority.

Justice Murali Purushothaman answered the question in favour of disclosure. The Court held that an approved building plan is part of the records relating to the affairs of the Panchayat. Consequently, a person seeking a copy of such a document has a right to obtain it unless disclosure is specifically prohibited by one of the exemptions under the RTI Act.

The decision reinforces the principle that transparency cannot be defeated merely by describing information as “third-party information”. Where a statutory authority receives, scrutinizes and approves a document as part of its regulatory responsibilities, the document may acquire a public character even though it originally originated with a private individual or institution.

The judgment also carries significance for the administration of building regulations. Building plans submitted to local authorities are not merely private drawings. They are documents examined by public officials to determine whether a proposed construction complies with applicable laws, rules, zoning requirements and safety standards. Once approval is granted, the plan becomes relevant to the exercise of statutory functions by the local authority.

Against this legal background, the High Court proceeded to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the approved building plan.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner argued that the refusal to provide the approved building plan violated his statutory right to information under the RTI Act. His case was that the document had already been approved by the Panchayat Secretary and therefore formed part of the official records maintained by the local authority.

The petitioner emphasized that he had not sought information that remained exclusively within the private domain of the hospital. Instead, he sought a copy of a document that had been submitted to a statutory authority and acted upon by that authority in the exercise of its regulatory functions.

The petitioner also relied upon the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, particularly Sections 271A and 271B, to contend that information concerning the affairs of a Panchayat should ordinarily be accessible to members of the public. According to him, an approved building plan fell squarely within this category.

The petitioner further placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ferani Hotels Private Limited v. State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others. It was submitted that the Supreme Court had recognized that development plans submitted to a municipal corporation contain a public element and should be made available in the public domain.

The petitioner’s argument was therefore founded on the distinction between information that is genuinely private and information that becomes part of a public regulatory record. Once the Panchayat had approved the building plan, the petitioner argued, it could not be treated as confidential personal information merely because the document concerned a private hospital.

The petitioner also contended that Section 6 of the RTI Act did not require an applicant to disclose the purpose for which information was sought. Section 6(2) expressly provides that a person seeking information is not required to give reasons for requesting it or to provide unnecessary personal details.

This provision was relevant because the hospital alleged that the petitioner was seeking the information because of a personal grudge against its Managing Director. The petitioner maintained that such an allegation was legally irrelevant to the determination of his entitlement under the RTI Act.

The hospital, on the other hand, opposed the petition. It questioned the maintainability of the writ proceedings on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the RTI framework. According to the hospital, the petitioner should have pursued the available appellate mechanism rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

On the substance of the request, the hospital argued that the building plan constituted information concerning a third party. It objected to its disclosure on the apprehension that the document might be used against the institution.

The hospital also alleged that the petitioner’s request was motivated by personal hostility towards its Managing Director. According to the hospital, the information was not being sought for a genuine public purpose but to settle personal scores.

The objection based on third-party information was significant because Section 11 of the RTI Act contains a consultation mechanism where information relates to a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party. The hospital’s position was that its objection should be given due consideration before the document was disclosed.

The respondents also sought to emphasize the distinction between information held by a public authority and information belonging to a private entity. Their contention, in substance, was that the fact that the Panchayat possessed the document did not automatically eliminate the private character of the information contained in it.

The dispute thus presented competing approaches to transparency. The petitioner emphasized the public character acquired by the building plan through statutory approval, while the hospital emphasized its private ownership and the potential consequences of disclosure.

The Court was also required to consider whether the petitioner’s alleged motive could affect his right to information. The hospital argued that the request arose out of a personal dispute. The petitioner, however, relied on the statutory scheme, under which the applicant ordinarily need not establish a reason for seeking information.

The State Public Information Officer had already agreed to provide copies of the building permit, licences and permits upon payment of the required fee. The remaining dispute principally concerned the approved building plan.

The parties therefore placed before the Court questions concerning the nature of the document, the scope of the RTI exemptions, the relevance of third-party objections, the applicant’s motive and the availability of an alternative remedy.

The High Court ultimately approached these questions by examining the statutory status of an approved building plan and the purpose of the RTI Act rather than treating the hospital’s objection as determinative.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Murali Purushothaman allowed the writ petition and directed the State Public Information Officer to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the approved building plan within one month. The Court’s reasoning rested substantially on the public character of an approved plan maintained by a local authority.

The Court first examined the meaning of an “approved plan” under Rule 2(1)(l) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. An approved building plan is not merely a private document prepared by a property owner. It is a plan that has been submitted to and approved by the competent statutory authority after consideration under the applicable regulatory framework.

Once the Panchayat Secretary approves the plan, the document becomes part of the records relating to the affairs of the Panchayat. It consequently falls within the sphere of information that can ordinarily be accessed under the statutory right to information.

The Court referred to Sections 271A and 271B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. These provisions recognize the right to obtain information concerning the affairs of Panchayats and therefore reinforce the public character of records maintained by local authorities.

The High Court observed that an approved building plan would be available in the public domain and could be sought by an RTI applicant unless the information came within one of the exemptions recognized by law.

This qualification was important. The judgment does not suggest that every document held by a Panchayat must automatically be disclosed. The RTI Act itself contains carefully defined exemptions under Section 8. Therefore, even information forming part of public records may be withheld where a valid statutory exemption applies.

The Court specifically considered the argument that disclosure could violate the confidentiality of a third party. It examined Sections 11 and 8 of the RTI Act in this context.

Section 11 establishes a procedure for dealing with information relating to third parties. However, the existence of the Section 11 procedure does not mean that every third-party document is automatically exempt from disclosure. A third-party objection must be considered within the broader framework of the exemptions prescribed under Section 8.

The Court found no sufficient basis for treating the approved building plan as exempt merely because the hospital was a private institution.

Justice Murali Purushothaman made an important distinction between information genuinely protected because of commercial confidence or trade secrets and information that regulatory law requires to be placed in the public domain.

The Court held that disclosure of plans that are required to be publicly accessible cannot reasonably be regarded as disclosure of commercial confidence or trade secrets where such disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.

The building plan in the present case was not being disclosed because it had somehow been obtained from the private institution through an unauthorized channel. It was a document that had been submitted to a Panchayat and approved by the competent authority in the course of exercising statutory regulatory powers.

The Court therefore found that its public character outweighed the objection based merely upon the document’s connection with a private hospital.

The High Court also referred to Section 6 of the RTI Act. Section 6 deals with requests for obtaining information, while Section 6(2) specifically states that an applicant is not required to provide reasons for seeking information or personal details beyond those necessary for contacting him.

This provision directly addressed the hospital’s contention that the petitioner was motivated by a personal grudge against its Managing Director.

The Court’s approach reflects an important feature of Indian RTI jurisprudence: the applicant’s motive ordinarily does not determine whether information is accessible. The statutory right is attached to the information itself and the exemptions provided by law, rather than to the applicant’s subjective purpose.

Consequently, even if a person seeks information because of a private disagreement, that fact alone cannot justify withholding information that is otherwise legally accessible.

The Court’s reliance on Ferani Hotels was equally significant. In that case, the Supreme Court had considered the public character of development plans submitted to municipal authorities. The Supreme Court recognized that such documents involve a public element because their submission and approval are connected with statutory regulation of development and construction.

The Kerala High Court applied the same underlying principle to the approved building plan maintained by the Panchayat.

The reasoning is rooted in the nature of local government regulation. Construction is not an activity entirely beyond public scrutiny. Building activity is subject to planning requirements, building rules, safety norms and other statutory restrictions. Local bodies perform these regulatory functions on behalf of the public.

A building plan approved by such an authority therefore serves more than the private interests of the person seeking construction. It also demonstrates how the statutory authority exercised its regulatory power.

This public element was central to the Court’s conclusion.

The Court also rejected the argument that the existence of an alternative remedy automatically prevented it from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Ordinarily, High Courts may decline to entertain a writ petition where an effective alternative statutory remedy exists. However, the rule is one of judicial discretion rather than an absolute bar to jurisdiction.

In the present case, the Court found that the denial of the information was legally unsustainable. In such circumstances, the existence of an alternative remedy did not prevent the High Court from examining the matter directly.

The Court’s approach demonstrates that the alternative-remedy principle cannot be used to preserve an unlawful denial of information. Where the legal position is sufficiently clear and the statutory right has been improperly denied, the High Court may exercise its constitutional jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of another remedy.

The Court therefore concluded that the approved building plan was not protected merely because it related to a third party.

The judgment also clarifies an important distinction between “personal information” and information concerning a regulated activity. Personal information under the RTI Act attracts protection where the statutory requirements for exemption are satisfied. But the fact that a document concerns a private person or private institution does not automatically transform it into personal information.

An approved building plan contains information concerning construction undertaken pursuant to regulatory permission. Once approved by the Panchayat, it forms part of the records maintained by the public authority concerning its statutory functions.

The Court consequently held that disclosure of such a plan does not amount to disclosure of personal information.

The Court observed in substance that the disclosure of a building plan that is required to be in the public domain cannot reasonably be treated as disclosure of commercial confidence or trade secrets merely because a private entity objects to its release.

This aspect of the judgment is particularly relevant in an era where construction permissions, planning approvals and regulatory compliance are increasingly connected with public accountability.

The decision also strengthens the principle that statutory transparency cannot depend upon the consent of the private party merely because that party supplied the document to the public authority.

Once a private entity participates in a statutory approval process, documents generated or approved as part of that process may acquire a public character. Whether such documents can be withheld must then be determined by reference to the specific exemptions in the RTI Act.

The High Court did not hold that every document concerning a private hospital is publicly accessible. Its ruling was confined to the approved building plan in question and the statutory framework governing such plans.

This distinction is important because the RTI Act balances transparency with legitimate privacy and confidentiality interests. Section 8 contains exemptions that protect certain categories of information. The Court’s judgment does not dilute those exemptions; rather, it prevents them from being applied merely because a third party objects to disclosure.

The Court’s treatment of the petitioner’s alleged motive is similarly significant. The RTI Act does not generally require an applicant to prove that the information is being sought for a public purpose. Section 6(2) expressly removes the requirement of furnishing reasons for seeking information.

Therefore, the hospital’s assertion that the petitioner was pursuing a personal grievance could not by itself defeat the statutory request.

The ultimate direction issued by the Court was clear. The State Public Information Officer was directed to provide the petitioner with a copy of the approved building plan within one month.

The decision in Joseph Palackatharayil Varughese v. The Public Information Officer and Others consequently reinforces the transparency obligations of local authorities and clarifies the status of approved building plans under the RTI regime.

The judgment’s broader significance lies in its recognition that public access to regulatory documents is an essential component of accountable local governance. When a Panchayat approves a building plan, it acts not merely as an intermediry between a private applicant and the State but as a statutory authority