1 CGHC010314182024 2026:CGHC:40529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4850 of 2024 1 - Rajkumar Dhruw S/o Late Shri Punit Ram Dhruw Aged About 62 Years Presently Working And Posted As Assistant Conservator Of Forest, Forest Division Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through - The Commissioner, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Kshitij Pandey R/o D.P.S. School Road, Kalipur, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), (Mobile No. 9685588846) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Armaan Memon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 16/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and set aside the order dated 08.08.2024 as the same is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the core issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the Cash Book maintained by the Forest Department, containing personal particulars of employees, labourers and other third parties, can be directed to be furnished to the information seeker in view of the exemption contained under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the RTI Act, 2005”). He submits that respondent No.2, vide RTI application dated 25.05.2022, sought certified copies of the Cash Book of Bakawand Range for the financial year 2018-19, pursuant to which the petitioner, while officiating as the Public Information Officer, offered inspection of the relevant records. Thereafter, respondent No.2 specifically sought the Cash Book for the months of July, August and December, 2018 and January, February and March, 2019. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, vide communication 3 dated 07.07.2022, declined to furnish the same on the ground that the Cash Book contained personal information relating to labourers, employees and other third parties, which was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The said decision was subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Authority by a reasoned order dated 19.10.2022. However, respondent No.1, in the second appeal preferred by respondent No.2, vide impugned order dated 08.08.2024, directed disclosure of the Cash Book. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 has failed to properly appreciate the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the fact that disclosure of personal particulars of third parties would amount to an unwarranted invasion of their privacy. He further submits that the petitioner had acted bona fide in denying the information and had also offered inspection of the records as a reasonable mode of providing access to information. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order, having been passed without properly considering the exemption under Section 8(1)(j), the reasoned order of the First Appellate Authority and the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the information sought by respondent No.2 does not fall within the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submits that the information sought is available with the concerned department and can be furnished to the information 4 seeker in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the impugned order directing the petitioner to provide the information to respondent No.2 does not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the Cash Book sought by respondent No.2 contains personal particulars relating to employees, labourers and other third parties. The petitioner, in his capacity as Public Information Officer, had declined to furnish the said information by invoking the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and the said decision was subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Authority by a reasoned order dated 19.10.2022. Respondent No.1, while passing the impugned order, has failed to properly consider the nature of the information contained in the Cash Book and the applicability of the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Though Section 10 of the RTI Act provides for severability of exempted information, the same would require an appropriate examination of the record and identification of the portions which may lawfully be disclosed without compromising the privacy of third parties. In the present case, the impugned order does not disclose any such consideration. Further, the petitioner had also offered inspection of the relevant records, which was a reasonable course in the facts of the case. 5 In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 passed by respondent No.1 in Second Appeal Case No. A/1034/2023 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. 6. Consequently, the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the First Appellate Authority affirming the decision of the Public Information Officer is restored. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat