IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 18 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/23521/2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 18 of 2026 ==========================================================

PRAKASH PANCHABHAI SOLANKI Versus STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. DIVYANG A RAMANI(7180) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 12/01/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record, pertinent is to note that the writ petition, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed with the following prayers :-

“13(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction modifying the order of respondent No.1 and directing the respondent No.3 to provide information sought for by the petitioner in its application dated 30.04.2020 for information of CCTV Footage on 16/03/2020 of Kirti Mandir Police Station regarding misbehave of police with applicant and his sister and take action against the opponents.

(B) Such other and further relief or relieves as may be deem fit, just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The averments in the writ petition are that the petitioner was dissatisfied with the order darted 29.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.1, namely State Information Commissioner in Appeal No. 0261 of 2020, whereby the information sought by the petitioner vide application dated 30.04.2020 was refused. The petitioner would submit that he had filed two applications dated 30.04.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the respondent No.3, namely the Public Information Information and Police Inspector, Kirti Mandir Police Station, Porbandar City, Porbander seeking CCTV footage of Kirti Mandir Police Station of the date 16.03.2020, on the alleged misbehavior of the police with the applicant and his sister.

3. Pertinent is to note that on denial of the information by the respondent No.3, the petitioner filed First Appeal before the appellant authority of 05.05.2020, wherein order dated 07.05.2020 was passed directing the Public Information Officer to provide the CCTV footage on 09.05.2020. The Public Information Officer provided information regarding five points through mail, but did not provide CCTV footage referring to the order of the State Information Commissioner dated 12.05.2011.

4. It seems that on 10.05.2020, the First Appellate authority had rejected the appeal noticing the absence of the petitioner and that the information regarding CCTV footage cannot be provided.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Second Appeal before the respondent No.1 namely the State Information Commissioner, wherein an interim order dated 03.04.2021 was passed to provide the information to the petitioner, but the contention is that no information was provided to the petitioner.

6. It is further stated in paragraph No. ‘9’ of the writ petition that by making a misleading statement before the second Appellate Authority that the petitioner had sought CCTV footage after 30 days and it was auto-deleted in the meantime and as such, cannot be provided, the Public Information Officer has succeeded in getting the order dated 29.09.2021 of dismissal of the Second Appeal. The ground taken in the writ petition is that the information sought by the petitioner, namely the CCTV footage of the Kirti Mandir police station of date 16.03.2020, has been refused on untenable grounds, and the first and second appellate authority h