HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 186 of 2026

11 February, 2026 State Of Uttarakhand Through Deputy Secretary &

another --Petitioners Versus Uttarakhand Information Commission Dehradun &

another --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State/petitioners.

Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand/petitioners against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2025, whereby the Public Information Officer of the Forest Department of the State was directed to supply the requisite information within a period of seven days, as well as against the judgment and order dated 03.11.2025, whereby the review application filed by the Public Information Officer was rejected and the order dated 27.10.2025 was affirmed.

2. The respondent no. 2, who was facing disciplinary proceedings, sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act, 2005”). The application seeking information, annexed to the writ petition, is dated 17.04.2025. By this application, the petitioner sought the following information:-

“Please provide a copy of all the files, including note sheets (both physical and online), related to the disciplinary action taken against (Raul, IFS 2004) in connection with the Pakharo Tiger Safar under the Kalagarh Forest Division, from January 2022 to date.”

3. Vide order dated 24.04.2025, passed by the Public Information Officer (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the information was not supplied on the ground that it was covered under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act, 2005. The said order was challenged in the first appeal before petitioner no.1/appellate authority, and the first appeal was dismissed, affirming the order passed by the Public Information Officer.

4. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 approached the Chief Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act, 2005 by filing a second appeal, challenging all the orders passed by the Public Information Officer as well as the departmental appellate authority.

5. The learned Chief Information Commission allowed the second appeal and directed the petitioner/Public Information Officer to supply the information. The arguments advanced by the State were not found to be tenable, vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2025. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/State contended that, in view of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act, 2005, such information was exempted from being supplied to any citizen. Therefore, the Public Information Officer was justified in denying the information to respondent no. 2. He further submitted that the matter regarding the disciplinary proceedings against respondent no. 2 is sub judice. Since respondent no. 2 had already replied to the charge-sheet, therefore, there was no reason to supply the information sought by him.

7. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners/State that, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2025, the petitioners filed a review petition before the Chief Information Commission on 31.10.2025, which too was rejected vide the impugned order dated

03.11.2025.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the grounds taken by the Public Information Officer for not supplying the requisite information were wholly illegal and unjustified. He further submitted that the information sought by respondent no. 2 does not fall within the ambit of the exempted categories as provided under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act, 2005.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, as well as the impugned orders, along with the provisions of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act, 2005. Section 8(1)(b) of the Act, 2005 is quoted hereinbel