[2026:RJ-JP:6545] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1306/2026 Piyush Son Of Shri Ramdev Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 33, Fatehpur District Sikar, Rajasthan 332001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission, Jhalana Link Road, Ots-Mnit Chauraha, Jln Marg, Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan. 2. The Public Informatiojn Officer, Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur-16, Rajasthan. 3. The State Public Information Officer And Additional Superintendent Of Police, Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. The First Appellate Authority (Police Department), Superintendent Of Police, Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 5. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Headquarters (Phq), Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 6. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Swami HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 09/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Rajasthan State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. RIC/SIKR/A/2024/015115 whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:6545] (2 of 4) [CW-1306/2026] 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2009, during investigation in FIR No. 207/2008 dated 27.12.2008 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur, the Investigating Officer recovered a pistol from petitioner’s brother, Manish Mahla S/o Ramdev Singh. The petitioner filed an application on 01.07.2024 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’) seeking certified copy of the logbook of the Government Vehicle allotted to the said Investigating Officer. Pursuant to this, the respondent No. 3 – the State Public Information Officer and Additional Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan gave a reply on 20.07.2024 to the application dated 01.07.2024 whereby the required information was denied being confidential in nature. The petitioner preferred a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2005 against the said reply which was dismissed by the respondent No. 4, the First Appellate Authority (Police Department), Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan vide its judgement dated 14.08.2024. The petitioner then preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005, regarding which, a notice was issued on 29.11.2024 by respondent No. 1, the Second Appellate Authority, fixing the matter for hearing on 09.04.2025 and a second notice was issued on 10.01.2025 [2026:RJ-JP:6545] (3 of 4) [CW-1306/2026] preponing the date of hearing to 06.02.2025. The second appeal was dismissed ex-parte by respondent No. 1 vide its impugned judgement dated 06.02.2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent notice dated 10.01.2025 whereby the date of hearing was preponed from 09.04.2025 to 06.02.2025 was not served upon the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent No. 4 passed a non-speaking order and did not discharge its burden under Section 19(5) of the Act of 2005. 4. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the material made available on record. 5. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts on record, the substantial question which arose for consideration is: ‘Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside when the information requested by the petitioner does not warrant disclosure in larger public interest?’ 6. The relevant provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 2005 reads as under:- “(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.” 7. Having regard to the relevant provision quoted above, and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of [2026:RJ-JP:6545] (4 of 4) [CW-1306/2026] the case and prayer made in this petition, the Court is of the opinion that larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of the information in the present case as the information was sought by the petitioner in order to verify the factual correctness of the recovery proceedings wherein a pistol was recovered from his brother. It may not be appropriate to disclose the movement of a police officer. With respect to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act of 2005, the respondent No. 4 clearly informed the petitioner that the specific information sought by him has not been entered into the logbook and the entire day’s logbook cannot be supplied to him as per Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 2005. Further, the date of hearing was preponed from 09.04.2025 to 06.02.2025 by the respondent No. 1 only after issuing a notice dated 10.01.2025. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is bereft of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /85