1 CGHC010266872026 2026:CGHC:29784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3645 of 2026 Ramnath Singh S/o -Hetram Singh Aged About 35 Years Posted As Patwari P.H. No. 30, Lailunga Tahsil Lailunga District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector -Cum -1st Appellate Authority, Public Information Officer District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub -Divisional Officer (Revenue ) -Cum -Public Information Officer Lailunga , District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Crime Free India Force Through Its President Raghvendra Pathak Office In Front Of Police Chowki Naila Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 5 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Chief Information Commissioner Sector -19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District -Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate with Mr. Danish Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.15 10:31:12 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities not to disclose the petitioner's personal service records and other confidential documents, including the affidavit submitted at the time of joining, caste certificate, domicile certificate and other related documents, in response to applications preferred by the private respondents under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘RTI Act’), as the information sought is claimed to be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents State/Public Information Officers not to disclose the personal details/documents of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a blanket order under the "John Doe" Injunction restraining the known persons i.e. the private respondents and the unknown persons, thereby mandating not to provide the personal details of the petitioner to private respondents or to any other personal for the purpose of publishing the same in the newspaper and other form of print media and mass communication. 3 10.3 Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the Petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.” 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari vide order dated 07.03.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lailunga, District Raigarh, and is presently posted at Patwari Halka No.30, Kamarga. Thereafter, the private respondent submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Public Information Officer, Lailunga, under the RTI Act seeking disclosure of the petitioner's affidavit submitted at the time of joining, caste certificate, domicile certificate, educational qualifications, training records and other service- related documents. 3. According to the petitioner, the information sought pertains exclusively to his personal service records and bears no relationship with any public activity or larger public interest. It is his case that disclosure of such information would amount to an unwarranted invasion of his privacy and is specifically protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 4. Apprehending disclosure of the aforesaid personal information to the private respondent, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking protection against such disclosure. 4 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents sought under the RTI Act namely the petitioner's affidavit submitted at the time of joining, caste certificate, domicile certificate, educational qualifications, training records and other service-related documents, constitute "personal information" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and cannot be directed to be disclosed in the absence of any demonstrable larger public interest. It is contended that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Others, (2013) 1 SCC 212, wherein it has been held that service records, qualification details, property returns and similar information of a public servant are personal information exempt from disclosure. 6. Reliance is also placed upon Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam, (2018) 11 SCC 426, Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, and the judgment of this Court in Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education v. Public Information Officer, W.P.(C) No.768 of 2013, decided on 06.07.2018, wherein personal information was held to be protected under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in Lakheshwar Prasad Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(C) No.6125 of 5 2025, order dated 19.12.2025, and Magrita Toppo v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(C) No.2268 of 2026, order dated 06.05.2026, this Court has granted interim protection against disclosure of similar personal information sought under the RTI Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities deserve to be restrained from furnishing the petitioner's personal information to the private respondents, as the same is statutorily exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and any disclosure thereof would amount to an unwarranted invasion of the petitioner's right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/State, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, jointly submit that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and premature. It is submitted that although an application under the RTI Act has been preferred by respondent No.5 seeking certain information pertaining to the petitioner, no information has yet been furnished by the concerned Public Information Officer. It is contended that the statutory authority is yet to examine the nature of the information sought and to take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. 9. Learned counsel further submit that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act specifically exempts from disclosure such information which 6 constitutes "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual, unless the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants its disclosure. It is submitted that the concerned Public Information Officer is a statutory authority and is under a legal obligation to consider every request for information in accordance with the mandate of the RTI Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, if the information sought is found to be personal in nature and covered by the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the same would not be supplied to the information seeker. 10. It is thus jointly contended that, in the absence of any decision having been taken by the Public Information Officer directing disclosure of the petitioner's personal information, the present writ petition has been instituted merely on the basis of an unfounded apprehension. Since the competent authority has yet to determine the request for information in accordance with law and there is no material on record to indicate that any exempted personal information is proposed to be disclosed, the writ petition, being founded upon a premature cause of action, deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 12. The principal grievance of the petitioner is founded upon an apprehension that the personal service records and other confidential documents pertaining to him may be disclosed by the Public Information Officer pursuant to an application preferred under the RTI Act. However, from the record it is evident that, as on date, no final decision has been taken by the concerned Public Information Officer on the RTI application, nor has any direction been issued for disclosure of the information sought. Thus, the apprehended injury, which forms the very basis of the present writ petition, has not yet materialized. 13. It is well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily invoked to redress an existing legal injury or a threatened action having a reasonable certainty of occurrence. A mere apprehension, particularly when the statutory authority has yet to discharge its statutory functions in accordance with law, would not ordinarily furnish a cause of action for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. More so, the RTI itself incorporates adequate safeguards against disclosure of information which is exempt under the RTI Act. 14. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act specifically exempts from disclosure personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual, unless the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest 8 justifies such disclosure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra), Canara Bank (supra) and Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra) has consistently held that service records, educational qualifications, caste certificates, property returns and other personal particulars of a public servant ordinarily fall within the ambit of "personal information" protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed in the absence of a demonstrable larger public interest outweighing the individual's right to privacy. 15. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that the statutory scheme itself casts a duty upon the concerned Public Information Officer to examine every request for information independently and to determine whether the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer, being a statutory authority, is expected to act fairly, objectively and strictly in accordance with the mandate of the RTI Act and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, before directing disclosure of any information relating to the petitioner, the Public Information Officer shall necessarily examine whether such information constitutes "personal information", whether its disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of the petitioner's privacy, and whether any overriding larger public interest exists so as to warrant disclosure notwithstanding the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 9 16. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, while this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this premature stage, it is observed that the concerned Public Information Officer shall consider and decide the pending application strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly the mandate contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act thereof, as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra), Canara Bank (supra) and Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra). Needless to observe, if the information sought from the petitioner pertains to his personal information protected under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and no larger public interest is found to exist warranting its disclosure, the same shall not be furnished to the information seeker. Conversely, if the competent authority arrives at a conclusion, for reasons to be recorded in accordance with law, that the information is liable to be disclosed, it shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with the statutory provisions. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh