AKRAM KHAN vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

1

CGHC010261992022 2026:CGHC:38348
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3505 of 2022
SHYNA
AJAY
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date: 2026.09.05
12:42:22 +0530
Akram Khan S/o Shri Ismile Khan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Quarter Number D/17
Deepti Vihar Colony, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Central Information Commissioner New Delhi. India.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner Through Chief Information
Commissioner Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - First Appellate Public Information Authority Office Of Family Court, Janjgir-
Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Public Information Officer, Office Of Family Court Janjgir-Champa, District-
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3506 of 2022
Akram Khan S/o Shri Ismile Khan, Aged About 34 Years R/o Quarter Number D/17
Deepti Vihar Colony, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Central Information Commissioner New Delhi India

2
2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner Through Chief Information
Commissioner Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - First Appellate Public Information Authority Office Of Family Court, Janjgir
Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
4 - Public Information Officer, Office Of Family Court Janjgir Champa, District
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s)
For Respondent
No.1
:
:
Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate
Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocate
For Respondent
: Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate
No.2
S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board

31/08/2026

1. The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in these two
writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and
are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of
convenience, W.P.(C) No. 3505/2022 is treated as the lead case
for adjudication of the present two petitions and the facts of the
said petition are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication.
The decision rendered herein shall, however, govern the disposal
of other connected writ petition as well, as the issues raised
therein are identical in nature.
2. Aggrieved by the order 28.01.2022 (Annexure P/7), the petitioner
has preferred this writ petition. By way of the impugned order,
respondent no.2-Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner

3
has rejected the second appeal preferred by the petitioner under
Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the
Act of 2005”).
3. The facts relevant for disposal of the matter are that the
petitioner was working as a driver in the establishment of the
Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa. Two departmental
inquiries were initiated against the petitioner in respect of certain
allegations and seven charges which were levelled against him
for misconduct. The departmental inquiries were concluded and
the services of petitioner stood terminated vide order dated
05.01.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir,
District Janjgir Champa. The order of termination was subjected
to challenge by way of a departmental appeal through the
Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.
4. One of the main grounds on which the petitioner has assailed the
order of termination is the denial of a fair and reasonable
opportunity of defence, both prior to issuance of the said order
and during the course of the departmental enquiry. To establish
this ground, the petitioner had sought certain information and
related documents from the department in respect of the
departmental enquiry initiated against him. The said
information/documents were initially denied by the department for
which the petitioner approached the Public Information Officer of
the Department which finally stood rejected vide order dated
15.01.2021. Against the said order passed by the Public
Information Officer, a first appeal was preferred which also stood

4
rejected on 10.03.2021 against which a second appeal was
preferred before respondent no.2 under Section 19 (3) of the Act
of 2005 which too stands dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2022.
5. The rejection of the application as also the two appeals was on
the ground of it being hit by the provisions of Section 8(1)(c) and
8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005. For ready reference, it would be
relevant at this juncture to reproduce Section 8 of the Right to
Information Act:
“Section 8(1)(c) & 8(1)(j) of the Right To Information Act,
2005
(c) information, the disclosure of which would
cause a breach 3 of privilege of Parliament or the
State Legislature;
(j) information which relates to personal
information the disclosure of which has not
relationship to any public activity or interest, or
which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual unless the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may
be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information, which cannot be
denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature
shall not be denied to any person.”
6. Now, if we read the two sections on the basis of which the claim
of the petitioner has been rejected i.e. 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the
Act, 2005, it would give a clear indication that the information
which has been exempted under Section 8 as is reflected in 8(1)
(c) and 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005 is in respect of third party

5
information and which could cause a breach of privilege of the
parliament so also of the State Legislature. As compared to the
aforesaid provisions of law i.e. Section 8 of the Act of 2005, if we
peruse the application which the petitioner has filed in the
capacity of an information seeker under the Right to Information
Act, it would clearly reflect that the information that he had sought
for was in respect of the complete note sheets of office memo
No.443/two-12-21/2020 on the basis of which the order of
termination was passed against the petitioner. The information
sought by the petitioner clearly reflects that the said information
was neither confidential, related to a third party nor intended for
use against any third party. The information sought was primarily
to defend himself before the higher authorities where the order of
termination qua the petitioner itself is under challenge. In other
words, the information sought is for an effective defence that the
petitioner could take up before the higher authority in his
endeavour to seek quashment of the order dated 05.01.2021
whereby the services of the petitioner stood terminated.
7. On due consideration of the information sought by the petitioner,
in no way would it be an information or disclosure of information
which could cause breach of privilege of Parliament or the State
Legislature as is contemplated under the provision of Section 8(1)
(c) nor would the information so sought for be an information
which relates to a disclosure of personal information to which the
petitioner has no relationship or has no interest or which could
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a third party as is

6
otherwise exempted under Clause 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005.
These are the two provisions under which the information sought
for by the petitioner has been rejected and which has been
confirmed by the First Appellate Authority as also by the Second
Appellate Authority. Ironically the order of dismissal has been
passed by the same authority who had decided the first appeal
which again would not be otherwise a fair proceeding drawn on
the part of the Presiding Judge, Family Court, Janjgir Champa at
that point of time.
8. Without making any further comment on the entire factual matrix
of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at
by the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority as
also by the Second Appellate Authority are per se contrary to
what is envisaged under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act.
The three impugned orders therefore are set aside/quashed. The
respondent no.4 is hereby directed to ensure that the information
sought for by the petitioner is made available to him in terms of
the Act of 2005, after payment of all the requisite fees by the
petitioner, at the earliest preferably within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the
responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondent no.4 so far
as the order passed by this Court is concerned.
9.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, both the Writ Petitions
are disposed of. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay