Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bheru Lal Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11253) on 27 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11253]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11940/2023
Bheru Lal Choudhary S/o Jahawar Mal, Aged About 55 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o Sindesar Khurd, Tehsil Railmagra, District
Rajsamand At Present R/o 5-H-44, Kudi Bhagrtasani Housing
Board, Near G.d. Memorial College, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Land Acquisition
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The State Public Information Officer, Jaipur.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Division Officer,
Railmangra, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC
Mr. Piyush Bhandari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
27/02/2026
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging communication dated
13.05.2023, whereby Respondent No. 3 denied to supply
information sought by petitioner in relation to land acquisition and
rehabilitation proceedings initiated for Village Sindesar Khurd,
District Rajsamand.
2. Factual matrix giving rise to present petition is that
petitioner is a resident of Village Sindesar Khurd. A notification
dated 25.04.2023 was issued by the State Government under
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11253] (2 of 8) [CW-11940/2023]
Section 4(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(“Act of 2013”), initiating acquisition proceedings for the purpose
of rehabilitation of villagers whose lands and residences are
allegedly affected by mining activities undertaken by Vedanta
Group (Hindustan Zinc Ltd.).
3. Being an affected landholder, petitioner submitted an
application dated 04.05.2023 before Respondent No. 3 (Land
Acquisition Cum Sub-Divisional Officer) under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act“) seeking certified copies of
relevant documents and administrative record relating to said
acquisition and rehabilitation proceedings. Said application of
petitioner was rejected by Respondent No. 3 vide
communication/letter dated 13.05.2023; however, the same was
dispatched to petitioner via speed post only on 02.08.2023 and
was received by petitioner’s wife on 04.08.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of
information is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme and object of
the RTI Act. It is further contended that the delay of nearly three
months in communicating decision dated 13.05.2023 appears to
be deliberate and has the effect of frustrating petitioner’s right to
raise objections within the statutory framework governing land
acquisition proceedings. It is thus urged that the conduct of
Respondent No. 3 raises serious doubts regarding fairness of the
process.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11253] (3 of 8) [CW-11940/2023]
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a
preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present writ
petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative
remedy in the form of appeal under the RTI Act.
6. It is further contended on behalf of respondents that
rejection of application of petitioner is wholly justified as the
information sought by petitioner is exempt from disclosure under
Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act.
7. To rebut the said contention raised on behalf of respondents,
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment
dated 13.11.2019 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central
Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v.
Subhash Chandra Agarwal reported in 2020 (5) SCC 481.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. In the context of present controversy, it is important to bear
in mind the philosophy underlying the RTI Act. The fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) casts a positive duty upon State to facilitate
access to information held by public authorities. Enactment of the
RTI Act represents legislative fulfillment of this constitutional
obligation. The purpose of the Act is to promote transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities by enabling
citizens to obtain access to information under the control of such
authorities, subject only to limited and clearly defined exemptions.
Legislative scheme of the Act therefore makes disclosure the norm
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11253] (4 of 8) [CW-11940/2023]
and secrecy the exception. Accordingly, exemptions contained in
section 8 of the Act are required to be construed strictly, and the
burden to justify denial of information lies upon the public
authority seeking to invoke such exemption.
10. Respondent No. 3 has denied the information sought by
petitioner by invoking the exemption contained under section 8(1)
(e) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows: –
“Section 8 – Exemption from Disclosure of Information
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there
shall be no obligation to give any citizen,–
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship, unless the competent authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information.”
11. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India
v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra), wherein the scope of
exemption relating to information held in a fiduciary capacity
under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act was elaborately considered.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a fiduciary relationship
arises when information is entrusted by one party to another in
confidence with the expectation that the latter will act for the
benefit of the person providing the information. It also becomes
evident from the reasoning adopted by Hon’ble Supreme Court
that the decision of Information Officer denying disclosure must
necessarily be supported by a reasoned order. The order must
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11253] (5 of 8) [CW-11940/2023]
disclose the analytical approach adopted by concerned authority in
balancing the competing considerations underlying the qualified
exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. In the context of
fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e), this would necessarily
require the authority to demonstrate how information sought is
held in a fiduciary capacity and how facts of the particular case
attract said exemption.
13. Applying aforesaid principles to the facts of present case,
this Court finds that the information sought by petitioner pertains
to the administrative record relating to land acquisition and
rehabilitation proceedings initiated under the Act of 2013. Such
proceedings are undertaken by the State in exercise of its
statutory powers and directly affect the civil and property rights of
affected landholders. The documents forming part of such
proceedings constitute official records generated in the course of
discharge of statutory duties by a public authority.
14. In this context, this Court finds it difficult to accept the
contention raised on behalf of respondents that such information
is held in a fiduciary capacity. A fiduciary relationship presupposes
a relationship of trust and confidence wherein information is
voluntarily entrusted by one party to another for the benefit of the
former. Administrative record of such acquisition proceedings is
maintained by concerned authority in discharge of public
functions, and respondents have failed to establish how disclosure
of such information could possibly result in any breach of trust or
confidentiality owed to any identifiable party.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11253] (6 of 8) [CW-11940/2023]
15. This Court also finds that communication dated 13.05.2023
denying the information to petitioner does not disclose any
reasoning demonstrating how exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is
attracted to the facts of present case. In absence of any analytical
justification showing the existence of a fiduciary relationship, the
denial is mechanical and unsupported by cogent reasoning.
16. Furthermore, material placed on record indicates that
communication dated 13.05.2023 was served upon petitioner after
a gap of three months. RTI Act prescribes specific timelines for
disposal of applications seeking information in order to ensure
prompt access to information held by public authorities. The
unexplained delay in communicating rejection of request defeats
the very purpose of the legislation. Such delay, particularly when
accompanied by vague and unsustainable reasons for denial,
raises serious questions regarding the approach adopted by
concerned authority. This Court is therefore constrained to observe
that conduct of Respondent No. 3 does not inspire confidence and
is clearly an attempt to shield the administrative record or the
interests of certain third parties from scrutiny.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of writ petition on the ground
that petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy available in
the form of appeal under the RTI Act.
18. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that where an
efficacious statutory remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11253] (7 of 8) [CW-11940/2023]
exercised. However, the rule regarding exhaustion of alternative
remedy is a rule of prudence and self-restraint and not one of
absolute bar.
19. Present writ petition has been pending since 2023. Even the
issue involved in the matter at hand is of significance as the same
relates to the applicability and scope of exemption clause
contained in Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the
surrounding circumstances, including the unexplained delay in
communicating the decision and the absence of any discernible
reasoning in impugned communication, give rise to a reasonable
suspicion that the decision of respondent authority may have been
influenced by considerations extraneous to the statutory scheme
of the Act.
20. Having regard to these peculiar facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that relegating petitioner to the appellate
forum at this stage would result in unnecessary prolongation of
the matter and would amount to a travesty of justice. Therefore,
this Court considers it appropriate to entertain present writ
petition. However, it is clarified that exercise of jurisdiction in
present matter is confined to exceptional facts of the matter at
hand and should not be construed as permitting routine bypassing
of statutory appellate remedies provided under the RTI Act.
21. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the reasons assigned for denying the
information to petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law
and are contrary to the spirit and object of the RTI Act.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11253] (8 of 8) [CW-11940/2023]
22. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. Communication
dated 13.05.2023 issued by Respondent No. 3 denying the
information sought by petitioner is hereby set aside.
23. Respondent No. 3 is directed to furnish information sought
by petitioner in his application filed under the RTI Act within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order, strictly in accordance with law.
24. With aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands
disposed of. Stay application and all other pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
53-JatinS/-
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 06:15:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 05:57:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)