[2026:RJ-JP:7214] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15842/2023 Neeraj Soni S/o Shri Kailash Chand Soni, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 25, Khetri Mod, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Public Information Officer And Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. The President, Nagar Palika, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka & Mr. Jwala Prasad HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/02/2026 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 29.04.2023 passed by the learned Rajasthan State Information Commission whereby the Second Appeal No. CIC/SIKR/A/2020/111090 filed by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’) was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 before the respondent No. 1 - the State Public Information Officer on 16.03.2020 seeking a true copy of the receipt issued by the Office of Municipality Neem Ka Thana on [2026:RJ-JP:7214] (2 of 5) [CW-15842/2023] 16.06.1964 by which a construction permit was granted in the name of Ramnarayan Bhagwan Sahay Darji. Upon not receiving the said information, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 2 - President, Nagarpalika, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan on 05.09.2020 mentioning therein that the desired information was required in relation to a case pending before the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge, Neem Ka Thana which was filed by the petitioner. However, when no action was taken, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 which was dismissed on 21.09.2020. The petitioner then preferred a second appeal before the Rajasthan State Information Commission which came to be dismissed on 29.04.2023 on the ground that the document, being of the year 1964, dates back to more than 20 years and thus, could not be fetched and provided to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Act of 2005 nowhere provides that denial of information on the ground of being more than 20 years old is a valid ground. He further submits that the respondents did not provide the required information in order to protect the persons at fault. 4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:7214] (3 of 5) [CW-15842/2023] 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 required information could not be fetched as the same relates back to the year 1964?’ 6. The relevant provision of Section 8(3) of the Act of 2005 reads as under:- “(3). Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, while considering Section 8(3) of the Act of 2005, observed as under:- “58. In other words, Section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of Section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be [2026:RJ-JP:7214] (4 of 5) [CW-15842/2023] preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, Section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the rules. Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all ‘information’ to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority. ... 67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the [2026:RJ-JP:7214] (5 of 5) [CW-15842/2023] authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.” 8. Keeping in view the relevant provision quoted above, the aforementioned legal precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and so also, the prayer made in this petition, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is a well established principle that Section 8(3) of the Act of 2005 does not require the public authority to preserve and maintain ‘all information’ for twenty years or more. In the present case, the document in question is a 62 years old document and the Office of Municipality Neem ka Thana is not under an obligation to maintain the records for such a long period of time. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner warrants dismissal as the submissions put forward by the petitioner are not tenable. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /43