1 2026:CGHC:1904 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2724 of 2022 1. Harbansh Singh Dhillo @ Nanu Bhai S/o Late Ranjit Singh Dhillo, Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Gurunanak Ward, Mahasamund Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Staff Officer, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. First Appellate Authority, I.E. Joint Commissioner, Rajya Kar, Sambhag No. 01, Civil Line, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Public Information Officer I.E. Assistant Commissioner, Rajya Kar, Mahasamund Circle, Lohani Building, Near Railway Crossing, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4. M/s K.N. Oil Industries Ltd., A Company Duly Registered Under The Companies Act 1956, Having Its Office And Works At College Road Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund, Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Hemratan Jhabak S/o Late Shri Sheolal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o College Road, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ayush Mahiswar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.01.13 18:26:43 +0530 2 Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.08.2021 passed by the State Information Commission Raipur in Appeal No. A/2114/2019/Mahasamund in case of Harbansh Singh Dhillo (Nanu Bhai), Ward No. 13, Gurunanak Ward Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) vs. First Appellate Officer & Another by which the application to sought information relating to respondent No. 4, wherein he has sought following information:- “01& ds ,u-vk;y b.MLVªht vkJe jksM+ egkleqUn ls lacaf/kr leLr ufLr;ksa dk voyksdu djkos ,o a vko’;drkuqlkj izekf.kr izfrfyfi miyC/k djkosaA” 2. The said information was declined by the Public Information Officer Commercial Tax on 15.02.2019. Against that he has preferred first appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Public Information Officer (Mahasamund Circle), Commercial Tax, Raipur bearing Appeal No. 01-2019 which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.04.2019 on the count that the said information relates to the third party which cannot be given in view of Section 8(d)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Against that the petitioner has preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission who vide impugned order dated 28.08.2021 has rejected the same reason by assigning the same reason, against that present writ petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the information cannot be called as personal information as he has taken the funds from the bank and public fund is involved, therefore, this 3 information cannot said to be as persona information. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 would submit that the information sought by the petitioner is personal in nature and confined respondent No. 4 only. He would further submit that the petitioner is unable to point out that what is the public purpose for asking the said information. Thus, he would pray for affirming the order and dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the writ petition. 6. This issue is no more res integra as this Court today itself in WP(C) No. 2759 of 2025 in case of Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission vs. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Another has decided the issue wherein this Court has held that the personal information without any public purpose cannot be given in view of the rider contained under Section 8(1)(J) of the Right of Information Act, 2005. 7. In the light of the judgment passed by this Court, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed by applying the same analogy and reasoning. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish