ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The short question involved in the writ petition is, whether by virtue of the impugned notification dated 1-8-2013 (Annexure P-1) issued by the State Government under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the RTI Act’), exempting the “Anti Corruption Bureau” from the operation of the RTI Act, the said Bureau is not legally obliged to furnish information pertaining to the allegations of corruption as provided under the first proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act?

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

Relevant Facts

3. The State of Chhattisgarh exercising the power under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 declared State Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences, Raipur to be Police Station by the name of State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences at Raipur having the jurisdiction over the whole of the State of Chhattisgarh, by order dated 1-11-2000. Thereafter, the State Government further, in exercise of the power under Section 2(s) of the CrPC, constituted “Anti Corruption Bureau” and declared the State Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences to be the Police Station for “Anti Corruption Bureau” as well, by order dated 27-2-2003. Thereafter, by notification dated 7-11-2006, in exercise of power under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, the State Government has exempted the Chhattisgarh State Economic Offences Bureau from the operation of the RTI Act. Thereafter, by the impugned notification dated 1-8-2013, in exercise of its rule making power conferred under Section 27 read with sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, the State Government has exempted the Anti Corruption Bureau from the operation of the RTI Act.

4. The petitioner herein being an RTI activist, made an application under the RTI Act on 2-11-2006 (Annexure P-2) to the Public Information Officer, Anti Corruption Bureau seeking information about the number of pending cases for sanction of prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the CrPC along with name & designation of delinquent employee/officer and the provisions under which offences have been registered against those persons, which was denied by the competent authority vide Annexure P-3 holding that by virtue of notification dated 1-8-2013 (Annexure P-1), the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) is exempted from furnishing information under the RTI Act which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that though by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, the ACB is exempted from the operation of the RTI Act, yet the ACB is obliged to furnish information, as by virtue of the first proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 24, the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption shall not be excluded and it has to be provided by the ACB and thus, by virtue of the first proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 24, the petitioner is entitled for information relating to corruption except the information which is covered by Section 10 of the RTI Act and therefore appropriate writ be issued quashing Annexure P-1 and any other appropriate writ which the petitioner is entitled may be granted to him.

6. Return has been filed by the State controverting the allegations made in the writ petition stating inter alia that Section 24 of the RTI Act clearly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to the intelligence and security agencies being organisations established by the State Government and the ACB has already been exempted by the State Government by issuance of the impugned notification dated 1-8-2013, therefore, the ACB is exempted from sharing information and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for disclosure of information relating to ACB. It has also been pleaded that by virtue of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, there sha