JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction to supply information to the first respondent as regards details of the process of grant of sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988¹ [For short ‘the Act of 1988’] as well as the response of the Lokayukt to the queries made by him on various points. According to the appellant, by virtue of Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department² [For short ‘GAD’] of the State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005³ [For short ‘the Act of 2005’] and in view of Section 8(1)(h) thereof, it could not have been directed to supply such information. On the other hand, according to the first respondent, the information sought is liable to be provided as there is no legal impediment in doing so.

Background facts

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the first respondent while serving as Town Inspector, Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni came to be implicated by the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh under the Act of 1988 in a trap case. A First Information Report was registered on 11.04.20