RAJKUMAR DHRUW vs CHHATTISGARH STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,

1

CGHC010314182024 2026:CGHC:40529
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
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

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