-1- 2025:CGHC:34413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1562 of 2021 Gulab Chand Soni S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni Aged About 50 Years R/o Soni Jewellers, Jawahar Chowk , Durg Chahttisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh, State Information Commission , Sector 19, North Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur 492002 Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naresh Patel Public Information Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate, holding the brief of Smt. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- to quash the impugned order dated 16.07.2020 (ANNEXURE P/01) and impose penalty over the respondent no 2 as per provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. ii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2) The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the State Information Commission, whereby the Commission rejected the complaint preferred by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "RTI Act"). 3) The petitioner had submitted an application under the RTI Act on 26.10.2019 before the Public Information Officer (for short, "PIO"), seeking information regarding whether Sub-Inspector and Inspector rank officers posted at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, had submitted details of their personal and family properties, as per legal requirements. 4) In response, the PIO, vide communication dated 02.12.2019, refused to furnish the information, citing that the same could not be disclosed under the RTI Act. The petitioner, being dissatisfied, submitted another application on 13.12.2019, wherein the PIO reiterated the same response. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the State Information Commission by way of a complaint, which too was rejected vide the impugned order dated 16.07.2020 on the ground that the information sought pertained to "personal information" and was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the information sought was not personal in nature but pertained to the statutory obligation of public servants to disclose assets, which is a matter of public interest. It is submitted that the Commission failed to appreciate this aspect and passed the impugned order -3- mechanically and without due consideration. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the information sought relates to personal details of government employee and the Commission has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 8) Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the petitioner sought information with regard to personal assets declaration made by police officers contrary to the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 9) The Commission, while rejecting the complaint, placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009, decided on 31.08.2017, wherein it was held as under: “13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in -4- supplying such information to respondent No.1.” 10) Applying the above legal principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the information sought pertains to personal declarations made by individual officers; thus, the findings recorded by the Commission appear to be justified. 11)In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the State Information Commission warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM