IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 23, 2026 MAHENDER SINGH CHAWLA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

CM-2594-CWP-2026

1. As prayed for, the application is allowed and Annexure P-23 is taken on record. CWP-888-2021

2. The challenge clothed in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 28.08.2020, passed by the respondent No.2- State Information Commission, whereby the show cause notice issued to the respondent No.3- State Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), District Panipat, was dropped. Moreover, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to ensure compliance with its order dated

30.10.2018 by the respondents Nos.3 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, pursuant to applications filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “R.T.I. Act”), seeking information concerning three separate complaints, information pertaining to Sr. Nos.1 and 6 of the applications was supplied to the petitioner, whereas information pertaining to Sr. Nos.2 to 5 was withheld on the ground of “non-availability on record”. It is contended that the respondent No.2 has failed to ensure compliance with its own order dated 30.10.2018, whereby a categorical direction was issued to furnish complete information to the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 cannot evade responsibility by relying on the non-availability of information that ought to have been maintained on record. If State Public Information Officers, such as the respondent No.3, who are empowered under the R.T.I. Act to provide information, are permitted to adopt such evasive defence of non-availability of information, it would undermine the fundamental purpose of the R.T.I.

Act.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that all information available on record was duly furnished to the petitioner, and the petitioner was even permitted to inspect the relevant file/record at the office of the respondent No.3. It is further contended that grievances concerning missing official records are outside the scope of the R.T.I. Act and the remedy for such grievances lies elsewhere. Accordingly, the legality of the impugned order cannot be assailed on the grounds canvassed in the writ petition.

6. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record.

7. Succinctly stated, the following information was sought by the petitioner through applications filed under the R.T.I. Act:-

“Complaint No. 1803 Peshi/2016

1. Provide the certified copy of the original copy of the abovesaid complaint.

2. Provide the certified copy of the statements of the victim recorded by the investigation officer regarding the abovesaid complaint.

3. Provide the certified copy of the statements of the witnesses of the victim party recorded by the investigation officer regarding the abovesaid complaint.

4. Provide the certified copy of the statements of the accused recorded by the investigation officer regarding the abovesaid complaint.

5. Provide the certified copy of the statements of the accused party by the investigation officer regarding the abovesaid complaint.

6. Provide the certified copy of the investigation report prepared by the investigation officer regarding the abovesaid complaint.

Complaint No. 2592 SPR/26.06.2016

1. Provide the certified copy of the original copy of the abovesaid complaint.

2. Provide the certified copy of the statements of the victim recorded by the investigation officer regarding the abovesaid complaint.

3. Provide the certified copy of the statements of the witnesses of the victim party recorded by the investigation officer regarding the abovesaid complaint.

4. Provide the certified copy of the statem