-1- 2026:CGHC:23344 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5180 of 2021 Bhesh Kumar Sahu Son Of Jeevan Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No.3, Near Vinay Talkies, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - First Appellate Authority/Officer, Superintendent Of Police, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Public Information Officer, Additional Superintendent Of Police, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 15/05/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “ (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records pertaining to the case from respondent No.1, for kind perusal Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.18 15:46:03 +0530 -2- of the Hon'ble High Court. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus as to quash the impugned order dated 13-10-2021 (Annexure P-1) and directing the respondent No.3 (Public Information Officer) to provide the information as sought by the petitioner in his application free of charge. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) on respondent no. 2 and 3 as per provision of Section 20 of Right to Information Act. (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents no. 2 & 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner, as per provision of Section 19 (8) (b) of Right to Information Act. (v) To direct respondents to pay to petitioner cost of this litigation. (vi) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble High Court in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has submitted an application under Right To Information Act, 2005 (for short “Act of 2005”) claiming information with regard to complaint(s) submitted against one Sub Inspector Ms. Shobha Yadav as per pleading made in writ petition, further as to who was the Enquiry Officer who conducted enquiry on the complaints. The Public Information Officer taking recourse to Section 11 of the Act of 2005 has sought consent of the concerned employee and upon her not intending to disclose any information sought for by the applicant against her, the Public Information Officer has dismissed -3- the application against which petitioner has preferred first appeal before respondent No.2 which came to be dismissed and second appeal preferred before respondent No.1 also came to be dismissed by impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities were under obligation under the Act of 2005 to supply the information as sought for in the application filed under Act of 2005. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. He raised an objection on the maintainability of the writ petition stating that person of whose information is sought for in the application, has not been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. It is also contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 while dismissing the second appeal filed by petitioner has taken into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Civil Appeals No.10044 of 2010 with Nos. 10045 and 2683 of 2010, order dated August 17, 2016) and has dismissed the appeal. He also pointed out that in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212 also, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that personal information cannot be disclosed unless and until some public interest is shown. In the application which is enclosed along with writ petition, it is not mentioned that information sought for is in -4- the public interest. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 6. Perusal of records of writ petition would show that petitioner has submitted application Annexure P-2 under the Act of 2005 before respondent No.3 in which he only mentions that he may be provided copy of the complaint, enquiry report and name of officer who has conducted enquiry on the said complaint and submitted report with regard to Sub Inspector Ms. Shobha Yadav. He has not disclosed anything with regard to public interest. 7. From Annexure P-3 it is appearing that Public Information Officer taking note of Section 11 of the Act of 2005 has noticed the concerned officer and has sought his consent as to whether information as sought for can be disclosed or not, upon which, concerned officer has not given her consent. Accordingly, application was dismissed. Thereafter first appeal and second appeal also came to be dismissed. Respondent No.1/State Information Commissioner while dismissing the appeal has taken note of the decision in case of Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra) and extracting the relevant observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision, had dismissed the appeal. Relevant portion of aforementioned decision which was considered by respondent No.1 is extracted below for ready reference: “59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that -5- personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.” 8. Section 11 of the Act of 2005 which is relevant is extracted below for ready reference: “11. Third Party Information (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State -6- Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law,disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2)Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. (4)A notice given under sub-section (3)shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) while considering the information sought of third party has observed thus: -7- “11. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the -8- Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. 13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 14. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision while considering the issue with regard to information sought for of third party of the copies of memos, show-cause notices and censure/punishment and other details and information, has considered the issue as to whether above mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act and in para-12 concluded that if the Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate -9- orders could be passed. In the case at hand, in the application, there is no such pleading as to for what purpose information is sought for and accordingly application was dismissed. 11. From the aforementioned discussed facts and provision under Section 11 of the Act of 2005 as also decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, in the opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity or error in decision taken by respondent No.1 dismissing the second appeal. 12. Writ petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/----/-/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen