1 CGHC010310392021 2026:CGHC:42143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4786 of 2021 Anil Agrawal S/o Late Sukhsagar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Sai Sadan, Bandhwapara, Purani Basti Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer (Planning), Office Of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Public Information Officer Under RTI Act) 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Appellate Authority Under Right To Information Act, 2005) 5 - A. K. Trivedi Superintendent Engineer (Planning) Office Of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Public Information Officer Under RTI Act) 6 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.29 19:18:31 +0530 2 7 - State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent/State Information Commission : : Ms. Akansha Verma, Panel Lawyer Ms. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate (through VC) S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. This petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 2.7.2020 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Second Appeal Case No.A/1537/2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an RTI application seeking details regarding Tender No. 597 issued by the Public Works Department (PWD), which involved a Comptroller and Auditor General disclosure of alleged financial embezzlement to the tune of Rs.1954.1 crore. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the requested information solely on the ground that an inquiry/investigation into the matter was pending. Aggrieved by the order of the PIO, the petitioner filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”). The First Appellate Authority dismissed the First Appeal vide order dated 10.4.2019 by 3 invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act (exemption relating to impairment of investigation/prosecution). The petitioner preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The State Information Commissioner dismissed the Second Appeal on two grounds (i) the petitioner allegedly failed to specify before the Commission which authority was conducting the pending investigation/inquiry and (ii) information cannot be furnished since an investigation/inquiry is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the statutory authorities are wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the scheme and object of the RTI Act. The State Information Commissioner erred in law by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny disclosure, failing to appreciate that information regarding Tender No. 597 and CAG audit findings involving Rs.1,954.1 Crore of public funds cannot be categorized as personal information. He further submits that the PIO provided an entirely vague reply without disclosing the identity of any investigating agency, case details or demonstrating how disclosure would impede investigation under Section 8(1)(h). He submits that the appellate authorities also committed a grave illegality by shifting the burden of proof onto the petitioner, in direct violation of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, which obligates the Public Authority to justify non-disclosure. Given that the Right to Information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the 4 Constitution of India as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the application could not have been dismissed on fictitious grounds. He submits that the deliberate suppression of public information warrants the mandatory imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act and grant of adequate compensation to the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/State would submits that the information sought by the petitioner pertains to Tender No. 597, in which an enquiry regarding the alleged embezzlement is currently pending before the Public Accounts Committee. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act prescribes that any information the disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders is strictly exempted from disclosure. Since no final decision has been passed in the ongoing inquiry before the Public Accounts Committee, the requested record was not furnished. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State Information Commission would also support the impugned order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the proceedings with respect to Tender No. 597 and the alleged financial irregularities highlighted in the CAG Audit Report are pending enquiry before the Public Accounts 5 Committee, the information sought at this juncture attracts the statutory exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. This Court is of the opinion that premature disclosure of documents during an ongoing enquiry has the potential to prejudice or impede the formal inquiry process. 8. In light of the foregoing, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order dated 02.07.2020 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which does not warrant any interference. 9. Consequently, the Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move a fresh application after completion of the enquiry. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay