1 2026:CGHC:16791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 942 of 2021 1 - D.K. Soni S/o Late Ramji Prasad Soni, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Banaras Raod Chathirma, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through State Information Commissioner, Sector - 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - First Appellate Authority, Office Of Law And Legislative Affairs Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Public Information Officer, Office Of Law And Legislative Affairs Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For State :- Mrs. Akansha Verma Dhabedkar, P.L. For Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 13.04.2026 1. The petitioner by way of the present petition is assailing the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed by Respondent No.1, i.e., the State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been rejected, affirming the orders passed by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3. The said impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent no.1 i.e. State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to 3 provide the information to the petitioner as sought by him forthwith without any further. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to pass an order by imposing the punishment against the erring officer with fine to the sum of Rs. 25000/-. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an advocate by profession as well as a social and RTI activist working at District Surguja. The petitioner exposes corruption and forgery by obtaining information from various sources and filing complaints against erring persons. The petitioner is also the President of Sarguja Society for Fast Justice, Ambikapur. The petitioner filed an application dated 06.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before Respondent No.3, Public Information Officer, Office of Law and Legislative Affairs Department, State of Chhattisgarh, seeking information regarding approval for initiation of prosecution against a public servant including B.R. Thakur, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. The said application was rejected vide order dated 31.10.2017 on the ground that the information sought was confidential and exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner 4 preferred a first appeal before Respondent No.2 which was also rejected vide order dated 19.12.2017 affirming the decision of Respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second appeal before Respondent No.1 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, which was also rejected vide order dated 22.01.2020 on similar grounds of exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. The information sought by the petitioner pertains to his own complaint regarding initiation of prosecution against a public servant and ought to have been disclosed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 rejecting the second appeal of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of law and liable to be set aside. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the information sought by the petitioner pertains to his own application seeking sanction for initiation of prosecution against a public servant, and therefore the same could not have been denied to him under the garb of exemption under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself had made complaints against certain public servants for their illegal acts and had sought information regarding grant of sanction for prosecution, which directly affects his rights and interest, and thus such information ought to have been furnished. The rejection of the application and subsequent appeals by the respondents is without proper application of mind 5 and in clear disregard of the statutory provisions of the RTI Act. It is submitted that the information sought by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of exempted categories under Section 8 of the Act, and even otherwise, larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. The respondents have arbitrarily denied the information with a mala fide intention to shield erring officers and protect them from accountability. The conduct of Respondent No.3 in denying the information and the affirmation thereof by the appellate authorities is unjustified and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that as per the mandate of the RTI Act, the information ought to have been provided within the prescribed period of thirty days, however the same has been deliberately withheld, causing prejudice to the petitioner. Such inaction and wrongful denial attracts penal consequences under the provisions of the RTI Act, and the concerned officer is liable to be penalized accordingly. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to furnish the information sought by the petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. A/390/2018 is legal, valid and has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties and upon proper appreciation 6 of the material available on record. The learned Commission, after perusal of the entire record, has rightly held that the information sought by the petitioner is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, as its disclosure would impede the process of investigation and prosecution, and therefore the Public Information Officer was justified in denying the information and the First Appellate Authority has also rightly affirmed the same. It is further submitted that the concerned department had already provided such information as was permissible under law and the remaining information could not be disclosed being exempted, and all procedural requirements under the RTI Act have been duly complied with. The findings recorded by the Commission are based on cogent reasons and do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court under its writ jurisdiction. The present writ petition is devoid of merits, misconceived and has been filed without any substantive grounds, and therefore deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 pertains to matters of prosecution and investigation against a public servant and is therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, since its disclosure would impede the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders. It is further submitted that the competent 7 authorities have rightly rejected the RTI application, first appeal, and second appeal by passing well-reasoned orders, which do not warrant any interference. It is also contended that the queries raised by the petitioner are vague, open-ended, and do not involve any larger public interest, being in the nature of seeking information about third parties. Thus, no ground is made out for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering that the information sought by the petitioner is covered under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which provides exemption from disclosure of information that would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders, this Court finds that the said information was not required to be furnished. Accordingly, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities. 9. The petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha