1 / 9 CGHC010293222020 2026:CGHC:30817 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 214 of 2021 • Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Through Its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs , Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector- 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur -492002, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Sardar Devendra Singh Satte Ward No. 10, Esai Para, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 20/07/2026 1. Petitioner Lok Ayog has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order, Annexure P-1, dated 08.10.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2, wherein the decision/ order of Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority was quashed and further direction to petitioner herein to provide the information as sought for in the application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”) within a period of 30 days. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act before Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, seeking copy of entire documents relating to Case No. 02/2019 between Sardar Devendra Sing “Satte” vs. Shri Shivkumar Tiwari. The application submitted by respondent No. 3 was considered and ordered that in view of provision under Section 14(1) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short “Adhiniyam, 2002”) the entire information as sought for cannot be supplied and only the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in the aforementioned case can be provided upon depositing requisite fee and it can be sent through post also upon depositing requisite postal expenses. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, petitioner preferred first appeal before the appellate authority vide Annexure P-4 and the first appeal submitted by respondent No. 3 also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2019 observing that in view of provision under Section 14(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2002 and the provision under Section 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) information relating to the enquiry cannot be granted and has dismissed the appeal observing that there is no good ground to interfere with the order of the Public Information Officer. The order passed by the first appellate authority was put to challenge in a second appeal before respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 by the impugned order has set aside the order of the Public Information Officer as also the first appellate authority and while allowing the second appeal it was ordered to provide information as sought for in the application under the RTI. This order of respondent No. 2 is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is per se illegal because it is contrary to the statutory provisions as provided under the RTI Act. He contended that respondent No. 2 failed to appreciate that the information as sought for falls within the category of exempted information under Section 8 of the RTI Act as the information 3 / 9 sought for relates to the material collected by petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. He also contended that respondent No. 2 has erroneously concluded that the RTI Act is having overriding effect under Section 22 over the provision of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002. The issue with regard to overriding effect of provisions under the RTI Act as envisaged under Section 22 of the RTI Act has been considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No. 2988 of 2021 and has held that unless Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is held inconsistent with Section 8 of the RTI Act, it will continue to be applicable. He submits that writ petition be allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-1 be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/ State submits that the instant relief which are prayed for in this writ petition is against respondent No. 2 as the order passed by respondent No. 2 is under challenge and therefore he is not making any submission on merits of the case. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, supports the impugned order and further submits that the first appellate authority has not assigned any reason for denying the required information. He contended that respondent No. 2 following the provision under Section 22 of the RTI Act had rightly recorded a finding that the provisions under the RTI Act would have an overriding effect over Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 and prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 6. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 3, though served. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that based on some complaint, petitioner has conducted enquiry against one Shivkumar Tiwari and has thereafter conducted an enquiry and filed the complaint. Respondent No. 3/ complainant had thereafter filed an application seeking entire record and documents of the enquiry proceedings conducted by petitioner, which was denied mentioning provision sunder Section 14(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2002 and Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 4 / 9 8. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines the “Information”, which is extracted below for ready reference. “2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. - (f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;” 9. Under the RTI Act, certain information has been put into the exempted category which is provided under Section 8. Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the said Act are extracted below. “8. Exemption from disclosure of information. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, - (a) x x x x to (f) x x x x (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;” 10. Section 22 of the RTI Act provides for overriding effect over other Acts, which states as under :- “22. Act to have overriding effect. – The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” 11. The Public Information Officer as also the first appellate authority have rejected the application relating supply of documents collected during enquiry by petitioner invoking provision under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002. 5 / 9 The provision contained under Section 14(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is also relevant, therefore, it is also reproduced below. “14. Secrecy of Information. – (1) Any information obtained in the course of an inquiry by the Lok Aayog, members of its staff or a person or agency whose services are utilized by the Lok Aayog for conducting inquiries in respect of any complaint, and any evidence recorded or collected in connection with such information shall be treated as confidential.” 12. The issue involved in the present case concerning the applicability of Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 702. Their Lordships have held that where any inconsistency exists between the provisions of any other law and those of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the latter shall prevail by virtue of the overriding effect conferred under Section 22 of the Act. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 33 to 36 are reproduced hereinbelow: “33. Section 22 of the RTI Act lays down that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the requirement under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules of filing an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking the information is directly contrary to Section 6(2) of the RTI Act and there is direct inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules and in the event of conflict between the provisions of the RTI Act and any other law made by Parliament or a State Legislature or any other authority, the RTI Act must prevail. 34. In the non obstante clause of Section 22 of the RTI Act, three categories have been mentioned: (i) the Official Secrets Act, 1923; and (ii) any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 6 / 9 In case of inconsistency of any law with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, overriding effect has been given to the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Section 31 of the RTI Act which is a repealing clauserepeals only the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. The Right to Information Act has not repealed the Official Secrets Act or any of the laws providing confidentiality which prohibits the authorities to disclose information. Therefore, all those enactments including Official Secrets Act, 1923 continue to be in force. This Act however, has an overriding effect to the extent they are inconsistent. 35. The non obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules and orders framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India: but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. b overridden by a enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335, wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp. 356-57, para 38) "38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127, Sabyasachi Mukharji. J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus: (SCC p. 153, para 38) 38…. As mentioned hereinbefore if the Scheme was held to be valid, then the question what is the general law and what is the special law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would have arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant". The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied: "(i) The two are inconsistent with each other. (ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment." If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail." " 36. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 of the RTI Act repeals only the f Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. If the intention of the legislature was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal with the dissemination of information to an applicant, then 7 / 9 the RTI Act would have clearly specified so. In the absence of any provision to this effect, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted so as to attribute a meaning to them which was not intended by the legislature. In the RTI Act, there is no specific reference to the rules framed by the various High Courts or any other special law excepting the Freedom of Information Act, 2002.” 13. Similarly, the scope and effect of Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal reported in (2020) 5 SCC 481. Their Lordships have held that Section 22 of the RTI Act incorporates a non obstante clause, thereby conferring an overriding effect upon the provisions of the Act over any other law to the extent of inconsistency. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 22 and 171 are reproduced hereinbelow::- “22. When information is accessible by a public authority, that is, held or under its control, then the information must be furnished to the information another statute already in force or under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. seeker under the RTI Act even if there are conditions or prohibitions under prohibits access to information by the public. In view of the non obstante clause in Section 221 of the RTI Act, any prohibition of condition which prevents a citizen from having access to information would not apply. Restriction on the right of citizens is erased. However, when access to information by a public authority itself is prohibited or is accessible subject to conditions, then the prohibition is not obliterated and the preconditions are not erased. Section 2(f) read with Section 22 of the RTI Act does not bring any modification or amendment in any other enactment, which bars or prohibits or imposes precondition for accessing information of the private bodies. Rather, clause (f) to Section 2 upholds and accepts the said position when it uses the expression - "which can be accessed", that is, the public authority should be in a 1 Section 22 of the RTI Act reads: “22. Act to have overriding effect. - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secretsh Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." 8 / 9 position and be entitled to ask for the said information. Section 22 of the RTI Act, an overriding provision, does not militate against the interpretation as there is no contradiction or conflict between the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and other statutory enactments/law. Section 22 enactment on the right of a citizen to access information which is accessible by of the RTI Act is a key that unlocks prohibitions/limitations in any prior a public authority. It is not a key with the public authority that can be used to 0 access information. In other words, a private body will be entitled to the same undo and erase prohibitions/limitations on the right of the public authority to protection as is available to them under the laws of this country.” 171. Section 22 contains a non obstance clause and stipulates that the t to impart priority to the salient objectives of the Act and ensure that where RTI Act has an overriding effect over laws. The import of this provision is information is held by or is under the control of a public authority, such not obviate legal restrictions that apply to a public authority to the access to any in any other law in force at that time. It is pertinent to state that Section 22 does information must be furnished to the applicant notwithstanding any prohibition information which is clarified by the use of the phrase "which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force" in Section 2(f).” 14. In the case at hand, the Public Information Officer has clearly recorded that under provisions of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002, the information obtained in the course of enquiry by petitioner and in evidence recorded or collected in that connection shall be treated as confidential, has dismissed the application observing that copy of decision taken in the complaint by the petitioner can be granted subject to deposit of requisite fee. The finding recorded by respondent No. 2 that in view of provision under Section 22 of the RTI Act, provision under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 will have no application is not sustainable because of the specific provision under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 if read with Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Application of Section 22 of the RTI Act would be where the provision under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is held to be inconsistent with provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act has not repealed the Official Secrets Act or any 9 / 9 of the laws providing confidentiality which prohibits the authorities to disclose information as held in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner (supra). 15. In the facts of the case as Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is still part of the statute and unless it is held to be inconsistent with provisions of the RTI Act, it will continue remain in force and applicable. 16. For the foregoing discussion and in view of aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 08.10.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 is not sustainable and therefore it is hereby set aside. 17. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE