HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2340 of 2025 D.N. Sharma ….....Petitioner Versus Public Information Officer and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Verma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges a communication dated 30.07.2025 of the respondent no.1/the Public Information Officer (“the PIO”) in the office of the Advocate General, State of Uttarakhand. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It appears that the petitioner sought a copy of Letter No. 1115/maha.stha./way.sansho./2010 dated 30.10.2010 (“the letter No. 1115 dated 30.10.2010”). By the impugned communication, the petitioner was asked to explain as to how did he come to know about the details of the Letter No. 1115 dated 30.10.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act”) seeking information with regard to the Letter No. 1115 dated 30.10.2010, but the copy of the letter has not been given to the petitioner, instead by the impugned communication dated 30.07.2025 of the PIO, he has been asked to explain as to how come 2 he know the details of the letter. He further submits that alongwith the impugned communication, a note of the respondent no.2 Narendra P. Godiyal, Superintendent of Litigation (“the SOL”) has also been enclosed, which suggests that the Letter No. 1115 dated 30.10.2010 has been stolen from the office and such information may be sought from the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aggrieved by the averments made in the communication of the SOL. He submits that, in fact, Letter No. 1115 dated 30.10.2010 is already on public domain in Government Order dated 06.12.2010 6. Not only this, it is argued that the PIO did not stop here. He again on 04.08.2025 sought information from the petitioner reminding him of the earlier communication dated 30.07.2025 of the PIO. 7. Learned State counsel submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of information under the RTI Act, he could prefer an appeal. 8. What is more strange is that the PIO did not stop by making the impugned communication dated 30.07.2025. He made another communication on 04.08.2025 to the petitioner. It is totally beyond the jurisdiction of the PIO. The Right to Information Act is for facilitating the right to know of a person. It appears that instead of furnishing information, the PIO in the instant case is threatening or intimidating the petitioner. 3 9. Apparently, the SOL, who is the respondent no.2 has also made some remarks in his communication dated 30.07.2025, which is part of the impugned communication dated 30.07.2025, which are unwarranted and they may in no manner be ever read against the petitioner. 10. The Court wanted to know as to why the PIO has made such communication particularly why should he enclose a communication dated 30.07.2025 of the respondent no.2, SOL? Why should he continue impliedly threatening the petitioner? Learned State counsel submits that such act will not be repeated in future. This Court leaves this aspect at it. 11. The petitioner has been denied information under the RTI Act. The petitioner has a remedy to file appeal against it. Therefore, the petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. With the observation made hereinbefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.08.2025 Jitendra