##PAGE1##

-1-

2026:CGHC:23344

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 5180 of 2021

Bhesh Kumar Sahu Son Of Jeevan Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o

Ward No.3, Near Vinay Talkies, Balod, District Balod (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through The Chief

Information Commissioner, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - First Appellate Authority/Officer, Superintendent Of Police, Balod,

District Balod (C.G.)

3 - Public Information Officer, Additional Superintendent Of Police,

Balod, District Balod (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate

For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani,

Advocate

For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

15/05/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“ (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

Digitally pleased to call for records pertaining to the

signed by

PRAVEEN

KUMAR case from respondent No.1, for kind perusal

SINHA

Date:

2026.05.18

15:46:03

+0530

-2-

of the Hon'ble High Court.

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue a writ in nature of

mandamus as to quash the impugned order

dated 13-10-2021 (Annexure P-1) and

directing the respondent No.3 (Public

Information Officer) to provide the

information as sought by the petitioner in his

application free of charge.

(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to impose maximum penalty of Rs.

25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) on

respondent no. 2 and 3 as per provision of

Section 20 of Right to Information Act.

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct respondents no. 2 & 3 to

pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the

petitioner, as per provision of Section 19 (8)

(b) of Right to Information Act.

(v) To direct respondents to pay to petitioner

cost of this litigation.

(vi) To grant any other relief deemed fit and

proper by the Hon'ble High Court in the

interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has

submitted an application under Right To Information Act, 2005 (for

short “Act of 2005”) claiming information with regard to

complaint(s) submitted against one Sub Inspector Ms. Shobha

Yadav as per pleading made in writ petition, further as to who was

the Enquiry Officer who conducted enquiry on the complaints. The

Public Information Officer taking recourse to Section 11 of the Act

of 2005 has sought consent of the concerned employee and upon

her not intending to disclose any information sought for by the

applicant against her, the Public Information Officer has dismissed

-3-

the application against which petitioner has preferred first appeal

before respondent No.2 which came to be dismissed and second

appeal preferred before respondent No.1 also came to be

dismissed by impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent

authorities were under obligation under the Act of 2005 to supply

the information as sought for in the application filed under Act of

2005.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the

submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. He raised an

objection on the maintainability of the writ petition stating that

person of whose information is sought for in the application, has

not been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. It is

also contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that

respondent No.1 while dismissing the second appeal filed by

petitioner has taken into consideration the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Central Public Information Officer,

Supreme Court of India & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

(Civil Appeals No.10044 of 2010 with Nos. 10045 and 2683 of

2010, order dated August 17, 2016) and has dismissed the appeal.

He also pointed out that in case of Girish Ramchandra

Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors

(2013) 1 SCC 212 also, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that

personal information cannot be dis