D/L Item No. 21 02.09.2026 KOLE 266462 WPA 27423 of 2025 Mousumi Ghosal -Vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Priya Ghosal, Ms. S. Kisku, Mr. S. Das, … for the petitioner. Mr. Sankha Subhra Ray, Ms. Riya Das, … for the Municipality. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner is represented. The respondents are represented. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction on the Kamarhati Municipality to provide information and/or details regarding the property situated at 31/1, Umesh Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700056, originally belonging to one Gobinda Charan Banerjee, since deceased, being the petitioner’s father. The petitioner claims that her deceased father had purchased this property sometime between 1965-1970. It is submitted that in the year 1990, the father of the petitioner died in a train accident. The petitioner also claims that the petitioner is paying the property tax of the said property on a regular basis. Unfortunately, the petitioner does not have the original title deed of the property in question and nor does she has any copy thereof. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the younger maternal uncle has 2 taken away such deed and all other important documents and kept them in his custody. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s daughter filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “RTI Act”) before the State Public Information Officer of Kamarhati Municipality on June 17, 2025 seeking, inter alia, details of the documents which had been provided at the time of the mutation of the said property. By a letter dated June 24, 2025, the State Public Information Officer and Executive Officer of the Kamarhati Municipality informed the petitioner’s daughter that since this was an age-old case, no document was found available in its office regarding mutation of the aforesaid premises. It was also stated in this letter that the mutation granted in favour of the aforesaid Gobinda Charan Banerjee took place long before and such documents were not available. Consequently, the SPIO and Executive Officer, Kamarhati Municipality found it not possible to reply to the query raised in the aforesaid RTI application. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated June 24, 2025, the petitioner’s daughter attempted to file an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Kamarhati Municipality. The petitioner submits that such appeal was not accepted by the Assistant Public Information Officer, Kamarhati Municipality. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner’s daughter addressed a letter dated July 29, 2025, to the Chairman of the Kamarhati Municipality and brought to his notice and knowledge the 3 aforesaid facts and reiterated her requests for information which she had sought. Thereafter, by a letter dated September 16, 2025, the Chairman and Appellate Authority of the Kamarhati Municipality replied to the petitioner’s daughter’s aforesaid letter dated July 29, 2025 and informed her that the authorities have tried their level best to trace out the documents sought by her and had found that due to change of Administrations of the Municipality, the earlier officers had failed to keep appropriate records and had not updated them due to which many records are not available with the Municipality. The petitioner’s daughter was also informed that the information sought by the petitioner was barred under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the following grounds:- “1. A mutation certificate records a change in land or property ownership, containing personal details like the owner’s name, address and property particulars. Under the several directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court this is considered personal information. 2. The Mutation Certificate and the details sought by you relates to specific 3RD Party Information and your application does not demonstrate a significant “larger public interest” that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy.” Consequently, the Chairman and Appellate Authority of the Kamarhati Municipality had not provided the information sought by the petitioner’s daughter and the present writ petition has been filed for the purpose of obtaining such information. Learned Advocate representing the respondents submits that in view of the fact that this matter pertains to very old records and documents, it has not been possible for the 4 Kamarhati Municipality to trace such records. He also submits that it is pertinent to note that even the concerned Registry Office has not been able to provide a copy of the title deed of the property to the petitioner. He also submits that the Kamarhati Municipality has made all possible efforts to trace the information and provide the information sought by the petitioner’s daughter notwithstanding the fact that she was not entitled to such information and documents under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. I am of the view that there has been no infraction of law or any violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner in the instant facts of the case. Interestingly, the petitioner has never filed any application or appeal under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It was the petitioner’s daughter who had admittedly filed the aforesaid application and appeal. But, she is not the petitioner before this Court. Hence, the locus of the petitioner is filing the present writ petition is questionable. Be that as it may, the Kamarhati Municipality has tried its best to provide the details and document information sought by the petitioner’s daughter but since the details were not available with it, they have not been able to provide such details and/or documents to the petitioner’s daughter. The Municipality cannot be faulted for the same under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. If the Municipality does not have the information sought available with it, the question of providing such information to the petitioner’s daughter does not, and cannot, arise. 5 Moreover, it is evident from the records of the writ petitioner that the petitioner’s grievance against the letter dated June 24, 2025, was considered by the Kamarhati Municipality inasmuch as the letter dated September 16, 2025, addressed to the petitioner’s Advocate by the Kamarhati Municipality clearly shows that it has considered the petitioner’s Advocate’s letter dated July 29, 2025 to be an appeal under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. In such circumstances, although I sympathize with the petitioner and/or her daughter, who is also the Advocate-on- Record and arguing Counsel of the petitioner, I have no option but to dismiss the instant writ petition. Since no affidavits are called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Rishad Medora, J.)