An Unchallenged RTI Second-Appeal Order Cannot Be Reviewed in a Separate Writ Petition

The petitioner sought, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), certified copies of the records in Case No. 7AA/138/2012, including an order dated 4 March 2013.

The BL&LRO initially stated that the records could not be traced. After pursuing first and second appeals, the petitioner remained dissatisfied.

Before the High Court, the respondents produced the State Chief Information Commissioner’s order dated 19 January 2026, which recorded that the case records had subsequently been found, but that only the order-sheet had been supplied and the remaining records withheld as exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

The record also showed that a certified copy of the 4 March 2013 vesting order had been sent to the petitioner by speed post on 2 January 2025.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing disclosure of the case records after the Second Appellate Authority had decided the disclosure issue and that decision was not under challenge.

2. Whether the petitioner should be provided another copy of the 4 March 2013 vesting order, which he said he had misplaced.

Section 19(1) of the RTI Act provides for a first appeal against an RTI decision, while Section 8(1)(e) exempts information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship, subject to the statutory scheme.

The Court did not decide the merits of the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(e); it noted that the Second Appellate Authority had already ruled on disclosure and that its order was not challenged in the writ petition.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the petitioner’s grievance regarding the order-sheet had been resolved and that the vesting order had already been sent to him.

As to the remaining case records, the Second Appellate Authority had already addressed their disclosure, and its order was not under challenge; the petitioner remained free to challenge that order in accordance with law.

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the respondents’ decision-making process.

However, because the petitioner stated that he had misplaced the vesting order, the Court directed that another copy be provided.

The Court directed respondent no. 6 to provide the petitioner another copy of the 4 March 2013 order within six weeks of communication of the order to that respondent by the petitioner.

The petitioner remained at liberty to challenge the Second Appellate Authority’s order in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs.