[2025:RJ-JP:43583] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5921/2019 Smt Meera Devi W/o Pradeep Chand Samria, Aged About 48 Years, R/o House No. 160/152, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sector No. 16, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Public Information Officer Cum Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/10/2025 1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 30.08.2018 passed by Chief Information Commissioner of State Information Commission in appeal No.8296/2018 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by First Appellate Authority, Inspector General of Police, Second was dismissed. 2. Counsel submits that neither desired information has been provided to the petitioner nor any specific answer has been given to her. Counsel submits that both First Appellate Authority and State Information Commission failed to consider and appreciate controversy in right and correct perspective. He contends that perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that a very feeble and weak reasoning has been assigned while passing them and grievance of the petitioner remains unaddressed. [2025:RJ-JP:43583] (2 of 5) [CW-5921/2019] 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that name of counsel for the respondent is appearing in the cause list. However, reply to the writ petition is available on record as per which, according to the provisions of the RTI Act, the petitioner has already been given desired information. 4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. It appears from bare perusal of Annexure-1 which is application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that information sought by the petitioner are very ambiguous. It appears that the petitioner has not sought any specific information from the concerned Public Information Officer, which is in his possession. I have gone though the orders dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure-2), wherein it has clearly been mentioned that the information i.e., copies of the complaint dated 15.01.2028 along with documents annexed therewith, filed by the petitioner herself, are already in her possession and therefore, same cannot be sought under RTI Act. The petitioner has been provided other relevant information. The order dated 15.01.2018 was further upheld by the State Information Commission. This Court also does not find any illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. Same have been passed in accordance with the provisions of law. 6. Apart from this, petitioner has already lost the battle before two forums I.e, First Appellate Authority, Inspector General of Police, Second and State Information Commission. The scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well settled to be very limited. The Court in exercising its [2025:RJ-JP:43583] (3 of 5) [CW-5921/2019] jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not wield powers of an appellate Court hence the court would not substitute its own view on the appreciation of evidence for the view taken by the Courts below, except when the findings are based on no evidence or apparent perversity, resulting into grave miscarriage of justice. Even in case that there are errors of fact the same cannot be corrected in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227. 7. It may be stated here that in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. This power involves a duty on us to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest this Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 8. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “12.Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere." [2025:RJ-JP:43583] (4 of 5) [CW-5921/2019] 9. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571: "This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors". 10. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar reported in (1999) 4 SCC 521, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling reappreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. 11. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 12. Recently in Garment Craft VS Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 (SC) 422 Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary [2025:RJ-JP:43583] (5 of 5) [CW-5921/2019] to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to.” 13. In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), (if any) also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /78