1 2026:CGHC:22004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3996 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava, Raipur (Cg) (The Petitioner No.1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned State Information Commission But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No.1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department) 2 - Public Information Officer Office Of The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund Forest Division., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nitin Singhvi R/o M.I.G.-59, Sector-1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG). 2 - State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Aryan Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. Petitioners/State have filed this petition with following reliefs:- i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records, pertaining to order dated 15/02/2021 passed by the State Information AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.20 15:22:53 +0530 2 Commission in Second Appeal No. A/3069/2020. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order impugned dated 15/02/2021 passed by the State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. A/3069/2020. iii. Cost of the petition be allowed. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case..” 2. 3. The petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 15/02/2021 passed by respondent CG State Information Commission Raipur in Second Appeal No.A/3069/2020, whereby certain directions have been issued with respect to grant of information to the appellant- Nitin Singhvi/respondent No.1 (herein) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act of 2005). 4. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the information seeker/respondent No.1 has filed an application dated 15.01.2020 and sought for certain information from petitioner No.2/Public Information Officer (PIO) pertaining to grant of certified copy of complete dossier to identification and research of every elephants by the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund. The information as sought for by the information seeker was refused by the PIO vide letter dated 14.02.2020 since the same was not in the larger interest of wildlife and might cause threat to the 3 existence of the elephants. Thereafter, the information seeker/respondent No.1 preferred a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority challenging the said letter dated 14/02/2020 alleging that petitioner No.2 has not furnished the information as sought for by him. The First Appellate Authority after examining the entire matter has rejected the said first appeal, thereafter, the information seeker/respondent No.1 has preferred a second appeal before respondent No.2/State Information Commission, in which, notices were issued to the concerned Authority (PIO and First Appellate Authority) and vide impugned order dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), the Second appellate authority set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority and directed that the Public Information Officer, Divisional Forest Officer, General Forest Division, Mahasamund to provide the information as sought by information seeker under the RTI application by providing certified copies of the dossiers and send it free of cost at the address of the information seeker by registered post within 30 days. Further, the Public Authority Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar was requested to recover the cost of free documents from the erring official and deposit the same in the treasury. Notices have also been directed to be issued to the PIO as well as the first appellate authority as to why adverse recommendation be not made to the authorities for taking action against them. Hence this Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/State submits that impugned 4 order dated 15/02/2021 have been passed by respondent No.2/State Information Commissioner acting as the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. The second appeal is maintainable under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005 before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, however, unfortunately, the State Information Commissioner usurped the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission and had proceeded to pass the impugned order. The second appeal has to be heard by the "State Information Commission" and not by any individual Information Commissioner as has been done in the instant matter. The State Information Commissioner in his individual capacity cannot act as the Commission and cannot pass orders in the capacity of the Commission while hearing a statutory appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act. On the said ground itself, impugned order appears to be without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further contended that the information seeker was denied the information because the information seeker requested information pertaining to the critical input with regard to movement of wild elephants, their movement and its path as well as their habitat. The said core information directly relates to the safety of wildlife and is needed by the department for taking necessary protective action. Thus, the information as sought by the information seeker cannot be disclosed as the same relates to safety of wildlife. The petitioner No.2/PIO acted in accordance with the object of the Act of 2005 and, thus, neither petitioner 5 No.2/PIO nor the First Appellate Authority appears to be at fault in issuing the orders. Respondent No.2/CG State Information Commission has failed to consider this aspect and passed the impugned order, which is not in accordance with law as per facts of the case. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/information seeker submits that the information seeker has filed an application dated 15.01.2020 and sought for certain information, however, petitioner No.2/Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to furnish the said requested information within the statutory period prescribed. The action of the PIO is contrary to the mandate of the Act of 2005. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the respondent is an environmental activist and addresses the concerns related to the protection and safety of wildlife and environment before the government authorities, and to that effect, has successfully initiated multiple PILs, especially for the welfare of wild elephants and their habitat. For which, learned counsel for Respondent no.2 would place reliance in WPPIL No.6/2016, WPPIL No.49/2019 passed by this Court wherein this Court has expressed its thankfullness to the respondent for his work. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 further submits that the PIO ought to have provided reasons for not disclosing the information under 8 (1) (h) of the Act, 2005 which in the instant case, the PIO has not done which is a gross violation of the mandate of the Act. He would place reliance in the matter of 6 Adesh Kumar vs. Union of India (2014 SCC OnLine Del 7203) and would refer to paragraph 9, which reads as under:- 9. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the CIC's order that it does not indicate the reasons that persuaded the CIC to uphold the view of the Public Authority that the disclosure of information sought by the petitioner would impede prosecution of the petitioner. A co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court: W.P. (C) 295/2011, decided on 03.06.2011 had considered the contention with regard to withholding information under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act and held as under:- “19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would “impede the investigation” in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act? The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non- disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1) (h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought “would impede the process of investigation.” The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would ‘impede’ the investigation. Even if one went by the interpretation placed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7930 of 2009 [Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) v. CIC, decision dated 30th November 2009] that the word “impede” would “mean anything which would hamper and interfere with the procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the 7 progress of investigation”, it has still to be demonstrated by the public authority that the information if disclosed would indeed “hamper” or “interfere” with the investigation, which in this case is the second enquiry.” 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/CG State Information Commission submits that present writ petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit as impugned order dated 15.02.2021 has been passed by respondent No.2 in accordance with law and in consonance with the object and spirit of the Act of 2005. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 11. In the case at hand, Respondent No.1 (information seeker) submitted an application dated 15.01.2020 before the Public Information Officer (PIO), Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, seeking certified copies of complete dossiers relating to identification and research of elephants maintained by the department. The PIO rejected the request on 14.02.2020 on the ground that the information sought was sensitive in nature and its disclosure could adversely affect wildlife protection and pose a threat to the safety and existence of elephants. 12. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred a first appeal, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the State Information Commission. By order dated 15.02.2021, the Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order of First Appellate Authority, and directed the PIO to 8 furnish certified copies of the dossiers free of cost within 30 days. The Commission further directed recovery of the cost from the concerned official and issuance of notice regarding possible adverse action. 13. Challenging the said order as being without jurisdiction and contrary to law, particularly on the ground that the information sought was vague and sensitive concerning wildlife safety, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking quashment of the impugned order. 14. Perusal of application dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.1/Information Seeker shows that the information seeker has filed a vague application as no specific details have been mentioned in the said application for the reasons best known to him, whatever has been mentioned in said application is that : " आपके का቟ኋाल቟ኋ में जमा करवाए ग቟ኋे हाथि቟ኋों की पहचान एव उनपर किक቟ኋे गए अध्቟ኋन से सम्बंधि त, सभी Dossiers की ्ቚमाथि%त ्ቚधित቟ኋाँ सूचना का आधि कार के तहत ्ቚदान करे।" 15. The aforesaid application seeks certified copies of all dossiers relating to identification and research of elephants maintained by the department. 16. The information sought pertains to identification records, research inputs, movement-related data and habitat-linked documentation concerning wild elephants. Such information is intrinsically sensitive and directly connected with wildlife protection measures. 9 17. Disclosure of such core data, including identification dossiers of wild elephants, may expose critical ecological and movement- related inputs, thereby potentially endangering wildlife and undermining conservation efforts. Protection of wildlife and ecological security forms part of the constitutional mandate under Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. 18. The Public Information Officer had declined disclosure citing threat to wildlife safety. The Commission, while directing disclosure, failed to adequately consider the implications of releasing sensitive wildlife-related records and did not properly examine whether the information attracted exemptions under Section 8 of the Act. 19. Further, the application itself is broadly worded and vague, seeking “all dossiers” without specification, thereby amounting to an omnibus demand for departmental records of a sensitive character. 20. Now moving to the question of jurisdiction of Respondent No.2, for which, it would be apt to quote Section 15 (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under:- Section 15. Constitution of State Information Commission. (2) The State Information Commission shall consist of-- (a) the State Chief Information Commissioner, and (b) such number of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary. 10 21. From the plain reading of the aforesaid section, it can be interpretated that the State Information Commission comprises of Chief Information Commissioner and also atleast one State Information Commissioner not exceeding 10 in number. However, in the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the State Information Commissioner alone, whereas, it ought to have been passed by atleast two members. 22. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 15.02.2021 suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and also from non-consideration of the sensitive nature of the information sought. 23. Accordingly, impugned order dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed in Second Appeal No. A/3069/2020 by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission is hereby set aside and this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash