# Rajjan v. State Information Commission U.P. Lko & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1473
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4465 of 2025
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajjan-v-state-information-commission-u-p-lko-anr-53498
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Right
to
Information
Act,2005-Section
19(8)-The
petitioner
filed
an
RTI
application
seeking
information from the Gram Panchayat,
Jabrauli-Despite filing the application, a
first appeal, and a second appeal, the
requested
information
was
never
provided-The
State
Information
Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.
25000/- on the Public Information Officer
and recommended departmental action
but failed to ensure that the information
was actually furnished to the petitionerThe court observed that the core objective
of the Act,2005 is to provide information
to the citizen-It held that the State
Information Commission has wide powers
under section 19(8) of the Act, including
the authority to direct the PIO to furnish
the
requested
information-The
court
criticized the Commission for passing the
order in a mechanical manner and failing
to fulfill its statutory duties-Accordingly,
the Court set aside the impugned order
and remanded the matter back to the
Commission
with
directions
to
take
concrete steps to obtain and provide the
requested information to the petitioner.
(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Rajjan Vs. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. & Anr.
1473
invoking of Section 20(3) also
cannot be justified which in any case
cannot even be invoked for cancellation
and is confined only to suspension. Thus on
overall conspectus of the material, it is
clear that there is no material whatsoever
existed to form a view that the petitioners
were indulging in any acts, which are
prohibited under Chapter II or can be
termed as offences under Sections 22 and
23, thus on that count, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed

15. The order of suspension dated
12.05.2023
and
the
cancellation
of
registration dated 13.10.2023 falling short
of the requirement under the PCPNDT Act
cannot be sustained and are quashed. The
appellate order dated 26.03.2025 is also
quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1473
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Writ C No. 4465 of 2025

Rajjan ....Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission U.P. Lko &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manoj Sahu

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shikhar Anand,C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Right
to
Information
Act,2005-Section
19(8)-The
petitioner
filed
an
RTI
application
seeking
information from the Gram Panchayat,
Jabrauli-Despite filing the application, a
first appeal, and a second appeal, the
requested
information
was
never
provided-The
State
Information
Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.
25000/- on the Public Information Officer
and recommended departmental action
but failed to ensure that the information
was actually furnished to the petitionerThe court observed that the core objective
of the Act,2005 is to provide information
to the citizen-It held that the State
Information Commission has wide powers
under section 19(8) of the Act, including
the authority to direct the PIO to furnish
the
requested
information-The
court
criticized the Commission for passing the
order in a mechanical manner and failing
to fulfill its statutory duties-Accordingly,
the Court set aside the impugned order
and remanded the matter back to the
Commission
with
directions
to
take
concrete steps to obtain and provide the
requested information to the petitioner.
(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. C.I.C. & anr. Vs St. of Manipur & anr. (2011)
15 SCC 1

2. Kishan Chand Jain Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2023)
SCC OnLine SC 1021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Shikhar Anand, learned
counsel for State Information Commission
i.e. respondent No.1 and learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has come to be
filed before this Court under Article 226 of
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Constitution of India on the ground that
the
mechanism
under
the
Right
to
Information Act, 20051 in its entirety has
failed to furnish the petitioner with the
information as was prayed for initially
before the Information Officer, who failed
to provide the same. The appeal arising
therefrom was also not decided within the
statutory period of time, as a result of
which the second appeal came to be filed
before the State Information Commissioner
registered as Appeal No.S 5/ A/ 0460 of
2024, which has finally culminated in a
penalty order and consigned to record.

3. On a plain reading of the
appellate order passed by the State
Information Commissioner on 24.02.2025,
it is gathered that the Information Officer,
who was issued notice and summoned for
providing the information prayed for by the
petitioner, did not cooperate with the
proceedings. He repeatedly failed to appear
on the dates which were fixed for
appearance. Due to the default on the part
of the Information Officer in cooperating
with the appellate proceedings, the penalty
clause appears to have been invoked, and
the appellate proceeding seems to have
been decided with the imposition of a sum
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand),
besides
recommending
a
disciplinary action against the erring
officer, i.e., the Information Officer.

4. On a perusal of the appeal
instituted by the petitioner before the State
Information Commissioner under Section
19(3) of the Act, 2005, it is clear that the
following relief was sought:-

सूचना
का
अधिकार
अधिधनयम, 2005की िारा
19(3)- धितीय अपील के
अिीन मााँगा गया अनुतोर्
सूचना उपलब्ि
कराई र्जाय

5. Essentially, the relief sought by
the petitioner was for being provided the
information prayed for.

6. Learned counsel for the State
Information Commission has submitted that
there is no mechanism for the appellate
authority to procure the information asked for
so as to be furnished to the aggrieved party.
The penalty provisions alone are available to
punish an erring officer. In the present case,
the same procedure having been followed has
resulted in the disposal of the appeal and the
imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand), coupled with
the recommendation of disciplinary action
against the erring officer has been ordered by
the State Information Commissioner on
24.02.2025.

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, on the other hand, has argued
that the purpose of the Act, 2005 is
essentially to provide the information
sought
by
the
applicant.
The
very
mechanism of proceedings under the Act,
2005
is
intended
for providing
the
information sought by a person, and in the
event of being aggrieved, the mechanisms
of first appeal and second appeal have been
provided under the statutute.

8. The argument put forth by
learned counsel for the petitioner appears to
have force.

9. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act,
2005 operate in different arena as has been
held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Chief Information Commissioner and
another vs. State of Manipur and
another2.

10. On a close scrutiny of the
provisions of the Act, 2005, particularly
5 All. Rajjan Vs. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. & Anr.
1475
Section 7 read with Section 19, sub-Section
(5), (6), (8), (9) and (10), we are of the
considered
opinion
that
the
State
Information Commissioner enjoys wide
powers
regarding
the
discovery
of
information from the offices/ officers/
courts for the purpose of being supplied to
an
applicant
desirous
of
seeking
information.

11. The relevant provisions of
Section 19 of the Act, 2005, which pertains
to appeal, are as under:-

 "19. Appeal.-(1) Any person
who, does not receive a decision within
the time specified in sub-section (1) or
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7,
or is aggrieved by a decision of the
Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, may within thirty days from
the expiry of such period or from the
receipt of such a decision prefer an
appeal to such officer who is senior in
rank to the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information
Officer as the case may be, in each public
authority:

 Provided that such officer may
admit the appeal after the expiry of the
period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied
that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
time.

 (2) Where an appeal is preferred
against an order made by a Central Public
Information Officer or a State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be,
under Section 11 to disclose third-party
information, the appeal by the concerned
third party shall be made within thirty days
from the date of the order.
 (3) A second appeal against the
decision under sub-section (1) shall lie
within ninety days from the date on which
the decision should have been made or was
actually
received,
with
the
Central
Information Commission or the State
Information Commission:

 Provided
that
the
Central
Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may
be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of
the period of ninety days if it is satisfied
that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
time.

 (4) If the decision of the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be,
against which an appeal is preferred relates
to information of a third party, the Central
Information
Commission
or
State
Information Commission, as the case may
be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to that third party.

 (5) In any appeal proceedings,
the onus to prove that a denial of a
request was justified shall be on the
Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, who denied the request.

 (6) An appeal under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of
within thirty days of the receipt of the
appeal or within such extended period
not exceeding a total of forty-five days
from the date of filing thereof, as the
case may be, for reasons to be recorded
in writing.

 (7) The decision of the Central
Information
Commission
or
State
1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Information Commission, as the case may
be, shall be binding.

 (8) In its decision, Central
Information
Commission
or
State
Information Commission, as the case
may be, has the power to-

 (a) require the public authority
to take any such steps as may be
necessary to secure compliance with the
provisions of this Act, including-

 (i) by providing access to
information, if so requested, in a
particular form;

 (ii) by appointing a Central
Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case
may be;

 (iii)
by
publishing
certain
information
or
categories
of
information;

 (iv)
by
making
necessary
changes to its practices in relation to the
maintenance,
management
and
destruction of records;

 (v) by enhancing the provision
of training on the right to information
for its officials;

 (vi) by providing it with an
annual report in compliance with clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4;

 (b) require the public authority
to compensate the complainant for any
loss or other detriment suffered;

 (c) impose any of the penalties
provided under this Act;
 (d) reject the application.

 (9) The Central Information
Commission
or
State
Information
Commission, as the case may be, shall
give notice of its decision, including any
right of appeal, to the complainant and
the public authority.

 (10) The Central Information
Commission
or
State
Information
Commission, as the case may be, shall
decide the appeal in accordance with
such procedure as may be prescribed."

 (emphasis supplied)

12. In this regard, we also find it
apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kishan
Chand Jain vs. Union of India and others3,
wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
paragraph No.25 has held as under :-

 "25.
Having
examined
the
Right to Information established by the
statute under Section 3 in the context of
the obligations of public authorities under
Section 4, we are of the opinion that the
purpose and object of the statute will be
accomplished only if the principle of
accountability governs the relationship
between
'right
holders'
and
'duty
bearers'.
The
Central
and
State
Information
Commissions
have
a
prominent place, having a statutory
recognition under Chapters III and IV of
the Act and their powers and functions
all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of
the Act. We have also noted the special
power of 'Monitoring and Reporting'
conferred on the Central and State
Information Commissioners which must
be exercised keeping in mind the
purpose and object of the Act, i.e., 'to
5 All. Rajjan Vs. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. & Anr.
1477
promote
transparency
and
accountability in working of every public
authority'."

 (emphasis supplied)

13. A perusal of the aforesaid
provisions as also the law laid down by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kishan
Chand Jain's case (supra), it is amply
clear
that
the
State
Information
Commission has power to requisition any
public record or copies thereof from any
Court or Office and by providing access to
information, if so required, in a particular
form.

14. Here, in this case, the petitioner
sought an information on eight points by
moving
a
requisite
application
on
21.03.2024 from the Public Information
Officer under Section 6 of the Act, 2005.
Owing to in-action of Public Information
Officer/respondent No.2, the petitioner
preferred an Appeal under Section 19 (1)
before
the
Appellate
Authority
on
02.05.2024. Even after filing of the First
Appeal, the respondent No.2 did not
provide the requisite information. Under
compelling circumstances, the petitioner
filed
a
Second
Appeal
online
on
21.06.2024
before
the
respondent
No.1/State Information Commission.

15. Though the Commission fixed
several
dates,
neither
the
requisite
information has been brought on record by
the concerned Officer nor he appeared
before the Commission. It is in these
circumstances
the
Commission
while
recommending
for
departmental
proceedings
against
respondent
No.2
consigned the matter to records.

16. The contention of the petitioner
that since beginning he requested for
providing the information and it has not
been provided by any officer at any stage.
Penalty is serving only the purpose of
punishing the respondent No.2 for in-action
of his legal duty, but it does not serve the
purpose of the petitioner. As per Act, 2005,
the Commission has wide powers to give
directions
to
the
Public
Information
Officers for producing the information
regarding which the prayer is made.

17. Broadly, it is stated that the Act
grants
citizens
the
right
to
access
information held by the public authorities
including
records,
documents
and
electronic information. The very object of
the Act is to harmonize the conflicting
interests, that is, ensuring transparency, to
bring in accountability and containing
corruption on the one hand, and at the same
time
ensure
that
the
revelation
of
information, in actual practice, does not
harm or adversely affect other public
interests
which
include
efficient
functioning of the governments, optimum
use
of
limited
fiscal
resources
and
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information, on the other hand.

18. Since the petitioner has sought
information from the Gram Panchayat,
Jabrauli, Block & Tehsil Mohanlalganj,
Lucknow on certain works done by it, it
cannot
be
said
that
the
requisite
information cannot be provided to him
under Section 8 of the Act which is
exempted from disclosure of information.
As stated by the petitioner, it does not
merely serve his purpose by punishing
respondent No.2. Despite his best efforts,
he is unable to get the desired information.
1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. A perusal of the order shows
that the Commission has passed the
impugned order in a cursory manner and
the efforts taken by it are not reflected from
the impugned order. It shows that merely in
a mechanical and mechanical manner, the
order has been passed. As per Act, 2005,
when the Commission receives an appeal
from any informant, it issues notice to the
officer concerned and fixes dates and
when he fails to respond, penalty is
imposed. But it ignores the fact that
though the Commission has wide powers
to get the information under Section 19 of
the Act, 2005 and provide it to the
informant, yet it has failed to invoke the
appellate powers for serving the real
purpose of the Act, 2005. The order of
penalty is deterrent but the real object of
the Act lies in furnishing the information
prayed, for which, no steps were taken by
the Appellate Authority.

20. For the reasons stated above,
the writ petition is A and the impugned
order dated 24.02.2025 is set aside, except
the punishment imposed against respondent
No.2 and the matter is remitted to the
Commission for deciding the appeal afresh.
We make it clear that we have not delved
into the observations made against the
respondent No.2. However, we direct the
Commission to put its best efforts to obtain
the requisite information from the Officer
concerned and provide it to the petitioner at
the earliest
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1478
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
Writ C No. 10898 of 2024

Saurabh Mishra ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Surendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 -
Sections 2(za) & 14 - Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Nominated
representative of a person with mental
illness - Section 14(4) of MH Act, 2017
enumerates five different categories of
persons, who can be appointed, in case no
nominated representative is appointed by
a person under Section 14(1) of MH Act,
2017 - There is no criteria or suitability
and also there is no mechanism provided
under the MH Act, 2017 for appointment
of a representative to take care of such
intellectually challenged persons or their
asset.
This
legal
vacuum
has
been
considered by the Courts and each time,
the Courts had exercised its parens
patriae jurisdiction while appointing a
representative or a guardian under the MH
Act, 2017. While exercising parens patriae
jurisdiction, Courts have to apply the
"wills and preferences" of the individual.
The
"wills
and
preferences"
of
the
intellectually challenged person have to
be determined either in the background of
advance directives as stated hereinabove
or in the absence of advance directives, it
ought to be guided by the factors which
point towards the 'wish & intent' of the
said mentally ill person. (Para 13, 14, 15)

B. Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226
- Examination of the validity of order -
When a statutory functionary makes an
order based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit
or by a reply, otherwise, an order bad in
the beginning may, by the time it comes