1 CGHC010091472023 2026:CGHC:30998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1383 of 2023 1 - K. L. Patel S/o Shri Priyadarshan Patel, Aged About 63 Years Retired Principal, Govt I.T.I. Raigarh, R/o Bangla Para, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Chief Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Joint Director (Training), Regional Office, Industrial Training Service, Bilaspur Range, Naveen Composite Building, 3rd Floor Room No. 2, 3, 4 Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Rajendra Kumar Nishad, R/o Jail Complex Collectorate Road, Shop No. 74, First Floor, Raigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Ms. Pranotti Das, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S.S. Tekchandani, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) so far it relates to the imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the information seeker sought personal information pertaining to the employees of the institution from the concerned Public Information Officer (the petitioner herein). She submits that such information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, being personal information, and therefore cannot be furnished to the information seeker. Accordingly, the Public Information Officer rejected the request on the ground that the information sought is specifically exempt under Section 8(1) of the Act. She further submits that, aggrieved by the said order, the information seeker preferred a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority, however, directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information, holding that the exemption contained in Section 8(1) of the Act was not attracted to the information sought. Challenging the said order, a second appeal was preferred before 3 the Second Appellate Authority. The Second Appellate Authority held that the information had been deliberately withheld by the Public Information Officer and that the exemption under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act was inapplicable. Consequently, it directed the petitioner to furnish the information sought by the information seeker and, while doing so, imposed a penalty of 25,000/- upon the petitioner. She next submits that the ₹ impugned order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is contrary to law. She contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in (2013) 1 SCC 212, has categorically held that personal information exempted under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act cannot be disclosed by the Public Information Officer. She further submits that there are other judicial pronouncements reiterating the same principle, namely, that personal information cannot be disclosed to an information seeker unless it falls within the statutory exceptions contemplated under the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is legal, proper, and justified, and therefore calls for no interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the information sought is not wholly exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further contends that, although certain particulars may be protected under the said provision, the remaining information is disclosable and ought to have been furnished by the Public Information 4 Officer. However, the Public Information Officer failed to supply even such disclosable information. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and considered the provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, this Court is of the considered opinion that the information sought by the information seeker pertains to the personal details of the employees of the institution and squarely falls within the exemption contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Act. Such information, being personal in nature, is exempt from disclosure and, therefore, could not have been furnished by the Public Information Officer in the absence of any overriding public interest. This Court finds that the Public Information Officer rightly declined to furnish the information by invoking the exemption under Section 8(1) of the Act. However, the First Appellate Authority as well as the Second Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the true scope and ambit of the said provision and erroneously concluded that the information sought was not protected under Section 8(1). Consequently, both the authorities proceeded to direct the petitioner to disclose the information and the Second Appellate Authority further imposed a penalty of 25,000/- upon the petitioner. In the opinion of this ₹ Court, the aforesaid findings of the appellate authorities are unsustainable in law, as they overlook the statutory exemption available in respect of personal information under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Having regard to the nature of 5 the information sought, the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act, and the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that the information sought is personal in nature and exempt from disclosure. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/1), along with the consequential directions issued therein directing the petitioner to furnish the information sought by the information seeker and as well as the consequential order imposing a penalty of 25,000/- upon the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. ₹ Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju