Chattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 July, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/9
CGHC010293222020 2026:CGHC:30817
AFR
PAWAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR
JHA
Digitally
signed by WPC No. 214 of 2021
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
• Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Through Its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And
Legislative Affairs , Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector-
19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur -492002, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Sardar Devendra Singh Satte Ward No. 10, Esai Para, Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
20/07/2026
1. Petitioner Lok Ayog has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India questioning legality, validity and correctness of the
impugned order, Annexure P-1, dated 08.10.2020 passed by Respondent
No. 2, wherein the decision/ order of Public Information Officer and First
Appellate Authority was quashed and further direction to petitioner herein to
provide the information as sought for in the application under Right to
Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act“) within a period of 30 days.
2/9
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 filed an application
under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act before Public Information Officer,
Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, seeking copy of entire documents relating to Case
No. 02/2019 between Sardar Devendra Sing “Satte” vs. Shri Shivkumar
Tiwari. The application submitted by respondent No. 3 was considered and
ordered that in view of provision under Section 14(1) of the Chhattisgarh Lok
Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short “Adhiniyam, 2002”) the entire information as
sought for cannot be supplied and only the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in
the aforementioned case can be provided upon depositing requisite fee and it
can be sent through post also upon depositing requisite postal expenses.
Aggrieved with the order passed by the Public Information Officer,
Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, petitioner preferred first appeal before the appellate
authority vide Annexure P-4 and the first appeal submitted by respondent No.
3 also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2019 observing that in
view of provision under Section 14(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2002 and the
provision under Section 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) information relating to the enquiry
cannot be granted and has dismissed the appeal observing that there is no
good ground to interfere with the order of the Public Information Officer.
The order passed by the first appellate authority was put to challenge in
a second appeal before respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 by the
impugned order has set aside the order of the Public Information Officer as
also the first appellate authority and while allowing the second appeal it was
ordered to provide information as sought for in the application under the RTI.
This order of respondent No. 2 is challenged in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent
No. 2 is per se illegal because it is contrary to the statutory provisions as
provided under the RTI Act. He contended that respondent No. 2 failed to
appreciate that the information as sought for falls within the category of
exempted information under Section 8 of the RTI Act as the information
3/9
sought for relates to the material collected by petitioner in the enquiry
proceedings. He also contended that respondent No. 2 has erroneously
concluded that the RTI Act is having overriding effect under Section 22 over
the provision of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002. The issue with regard to
overriding effect of provisions under the RTI Act as envisaged under Section
22 of the RTI Act has been considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in WPC No. 2988 of 2021 and has held that unless Section 14 of the
Adhiniyam, 2002 is held inconsistent with Section 8 of the RTI Act, it will
continue to be applicable. He submits that writ petition be allowed and the
impugned order Annexure P-1 be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/ State submits that the instant relief
which are prayed for in this writ petition is against respondent No. 2 as the
order passed by respondent No. 2 is under challenge and therefore he is not
making any submission on merits of the case.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the submission of learned
counsel for petitioner, supports the impugned order and further submits that
the first appellate authority has not assigned any reason for denying the
required information. He contended that respondent No. 2 following the
provision under Section 22 of the RTI Act had rightly recorded a finding that
the provisions under the RTI Act would have an overriding effect over Section
14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 and prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
6. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 3, though served.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are that based on some complaint,
petitioner has conducted enquiry against one Shivkumar Tiwari and has
thereafter conducted an enquiry and filed the complaint. Respondent No. 3/
complainant had thereafter filed an application seeking entire record and
documents of the enquiry proceedings conducted by petitioner, which was
denied mentioning provision sunder Section 14(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2002
and Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
4/9
8. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines the “Information”, which is extracted below
for ready reference.
“2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires. –
(f) “information” means any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions,
advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks,
contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material
held in any electronic form and information relating to
any private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in
force;”
9. Under the RTI Act, certain information has been put into the exempted
category which is provided under Section 8. Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of
the said Act are extracted below.
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, –
(a) x x x x to (f) x x x x
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger
the life or physical safety of any person or identify the
source of information or assistance given in confidence
for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders;”
10. Section 22 of the RTI Act provides for overriding effect over other Acts, which
states as under :-
“22. Act to have overriding effect. – The provisions of
this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets
Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force
or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law
other than this Act.”
11. The Public Information Officer as also the first appellate authority have
rejected the application relating supply of documents collected during enquiry
by petitioner invoking provision under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002.
5/9
The provision contained under Section 14(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is also
relevant, therefore, it is also reproduced below.
“14. Secrecy of Information. – (1) Any information
obtained in the course of an inquiry by the Lok Aayog,
members of its staff or a person or agency whose services
are utilized by the Lok Aayog for conducting inquiries in
respect of any complaint, and any evidence recorded or
collected in connection with such information shall be
treated as confidential.”
12. The issue involved in the present case concerning the applicability of Section
22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of
Gujarat, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 702. Their Lordships have held that where
any inconsistency exists between the provisions of any other law and those
of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the latter shall prevail by virtue of the
overriding effect conferred under Section 22 of the Act. The relevant
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 33 to 36 are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“33. Section 22 of the RTI Act lays down that the
provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any
other law for the time being in force or in any
instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than the RTI Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant has submitted that since the requirement
under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules of
filing an affidavit stating the grounds for seeking the
information is directly contrary to Section 6(2) of the
RTI Act and there is direct inconsistency between the
provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court
Rules and in the event of conflict between the
provisions of the RTI Act and any other law made by
Parliament or a State Legislature or any other
authority, the RTI Act must prevail.
34. In the non obstante clause of Section 22 of the
RTI Act, three categories have been mentioned:
(i) the Official Secrets Act, 1923; and
(ii) any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) any instrument having effect by virtue of any law
other than this Act.
6/9
In case of inconsistency of any law with the provisions
of the Right to Information Act, overriding effect has
been given to the provisions of the Right to
Information Act. Section 31 of the RTI Act which is a
repealing clauserepeals only the Freedom of
Information Act, 2002 and not other laws. The Right to
Information Act has not repealed the Official Secrets
Act or any of the laws providing confidentiality which
prohibits the authorities to disclose information.
Therefore, all those enactments including Official
Secrets Act, 1923 continue to be in force. This Act
however, has an overriding effect to the extent they
are inconsistent.
35. The non obstante clause of the RTI Act does not
mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules and
orders framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of
India: but only has an overriding effect in case of
inconsistency. b overridden by a enactment simply
because the latter opens up with a non obstante
clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between
the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully
refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S.
Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335,
wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp.
356-57, para 38)
“38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3
SCC 127, Sabyasachi Mukharji. J. (as his Lordship then
was) observed thus: (SCC p. 153, para 38)
38…. As mentioned hereinbefore if the Scheme was
held to be valid, then the question what is the general
law and what is the special law and which law in case
of conflict would prevail would have arisen and that
would have necessitated the application of the
principle “generalia specialibus non derogant”. The
general rule to be followed in case of conflict between
the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier
one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to
a later general law, if either of the two following
conditions is satisfied:
“(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.
(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the
earlier enactment.”
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later
law, even though general, would prevail.” ”
36. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 of the RTI Act
repeals only the f Freedom of Information Act, 2002
and not other laws. If the intention of the legislature
was to repeal any other Acts or laws which deal with
the dissemination of information to an applicant, then
7/9the RTI Act would have clearly specified so. In the
absence of any provision to this effect, the provisions
of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted so as to attribute
a meaning to them which was not intended by the
legislature. In the RTI Act, there is no specific
reference to the rules framed by the various High
Courts or any other special law excepting the
Freedom of Information Act, 2002.”
13. Similarly, the scope and effect of Section 22 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash
Chandra Agrawal reported in (2020) 5 SCC 481. Their Lordships have held
that Section 22 of the RTI Act incorporates a non obstante clause, thereby
conferring an overriding effect upon the provisions of the Act over any other
law to the extent of inconsistency. The relevant observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 22 and 171 are reproduced
hereinbelow::-
“22. When information is accessible by a public
authority, that is, held or under its control, then the
information must be furnished to the information
another statute already in force or under the Official
Secrets Act, 1923. seeker under the RTI Act even if
there are conditions or prohibitions under prohibits
access to information by the public. In view of the non
obstante clause in Section 221 of the RTI Act, any
prohibition of condition which prevents a citizen from
having access to information would not apply.
Restriction on the right of citizens is erased. However,
when access to information by a public authority itself
is prohibited or is accessible subject to conditions,
then the prohibition is not obliterated and the
preconditions are not erased. Section 2(f) read with
Section 22 of the RTI Act does not bring any
modification or amendment in any other enactment,
which bars or prohibits or imposes precondition for
accessing information of the private bodies. Rather,
clause (f) to Section 2 upholds and accepts the said
position when it uses the expression – “which can be
accessed”, that is, the public authority should be in a1 Section 22 of the RTI Act reads: “22. Act to have overriding effect. – The provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secretsh Act, 1923 (19 of
1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law
other than this Act.”
8/9
position and be entitled to ask for the said information.
Section 22 of the RTI Act, an overriding provision,
does not militate against the interpretation as there is
no contradiction or conflict between the provisions of
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and other statutory
enactments/law. Section 22 enactment on the right of
a citizen to access information which is accessible by
of the RTI Act is a key that unlocks
prohibitions/limitations in any prior a public authority. It
is not a key with the public authority that can be used
to 0 access information. In other words, a private body
will be entitled to the same undo and erase
prohibitions/limitations on the right of the public
authority to protection as is available to them under
the laws of this country.”
171. Section 22 contains a non obstance clause and
stipulates that the t to impart priority to the salient
objectives of the Act and ensure that where RTI Act
has an overriding effect over laws. The import of this
provision is information is held by or is under the
control of a public authority, such not obviate legal
restrictions that apply to a public authority to the
access to any in any other law in force at that time. It
is pertinent to state that Section 22 does information
must be furnished to the applicant notwithstanding any
prohibition information which is clarified by the use of
the phrase “which can be accessed by a public
authority under any law for the time being in force” in
Section 2(f).”
14. In the case at hand, the Public Information Officer has clearly recorded that
under provisions of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002, the information
obtained in the course of enquiry by petitioner and in evidence recorded or
collected in that connection shall be treated as confidential, has dismissed
the application observing that copy of decision taken in the complaint by the
petitioner can be granted subject to deposit of requisite fee. The finding
recorded by respondent No. 2 that in view of provision under Section 22 of
the RTI Act, provision under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 will have no
application is not sustainable because of the specific provision under Section
14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 if read with Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Application of Section 22 of the RTI Act would be where the provision under
Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is held to be inconsistent with provisions
of the RTI Act. The RTI Act has not repealed the Official Secrets Act or any
9/9
of the laws providing confidentiality which prohibits the authorities to disclose
information as held in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner
(supra).
15. In the facts of the case as Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 is still part of
the statute and unless it is held to be inconsistent with provisions of the RTI
Act, it will continue remain in force and applicable.
16. For the foregoing discussion and in view of aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order
Annexure P-1 dated 08.10.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 is not
sustainable and therefore it is hereby set aside.
17. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn JUDGE
