Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Nitin Singhvi on 17 June, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:24507
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHYNA
AJAY WPC No. 4231 of 2022
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date: 2026.07.06
15:01:23 +0530
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of
Chhattisgarh Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Public Information Officer Office of the Divisional Forest Officer,
Mahasamund Forest Division, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Nitin Singhvi R/o M. I. G.- 59, Sector-1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - State Chief Information Commissioner, State Information
Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. GA
For Respondent : Mr. Shyam Suderlal Tekchandani, Advocate
No.2
2
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
17/06/2026
1. By way of this petition, the Petitioners/State have filed this petition
seeking the following reliefs:-
i. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire records, pertaining to order dated
15/02/2021 passed by the State Information
Commission in Second Appeal No. A/3067/2020.ii. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order
impugned dated 15/02/2021 passed by the State
Information Commission in Second Appeal No.
A/3067/2020.
iii. Cost of the petition be allowed.
iv. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2.
3. The petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the
impugned order dated 15/02/2021 passed by the Respondent
No.2 in Second Appeal No.A/3067/2020, whereby certain
directions have been issued with respect to grant of information to
appellant- Nitin Singhvi/respondent No.1 (herein) under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 (in short “Act of 2005”).
4. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the information
3
seeker/respondent No.1 has filed an application dated 15.01.2020and sought for certain information from petitioner No.2/Public
Information Officer (PIO) pertaining to grant of complete
information in respect of documents submitted by Wildlife S.O.S.
to the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, concerning the
movement and habitat area of the elephants, as obtained after
placing radio collars on the elephants. The information as sought
for by the information seeker was refused by the PIO vide letter
dated 14.02.2020 on the ground that the disclosure was not in the
larger interest of wildlife, particularly it was contrary to the safety
of the wild elephants, as disclosing such critical data would place
their precise movements and habitats into the public domain.
Thereafter, the information seeker/respondent No.1 preferred a
First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority challenging the
said letter dated 14/02/2020 alleging that petitioner No.2 has not
furnished the information as sought for by him. The First Appellate
Authority after examining the entire matter rejected the said First
Appeal. Thereafter, the information seeker/respondent No.1
preferred a second appeal before Respondent No.2/State Chief
Information Commissioner, wherein, notices were issued to the
concerned Authority (petitioner No.2) and vide the impugned order
dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), the Second Appellate Authority
set-aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and
directed that the Public Information Officer, Divisional Forest
Officer, General Forest Division, Mahasamund to provide the
information as sought by information seeker under the RTI
4
application and further ordered that cost be recovered from the
said officer. Further, notices have also been issued to the PIO
(Petitioner No.2) and the First Appellate Authority to show cause
as to why adverse recommendation be not made to the authorities
for taking action against them and directed them to submit reply
within 30 days through Registered AD. Hence this Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/State submits that the
impugned order dated 15/02/2021 has been passed by
Respondent No.2/State Chief Information Commissioner acting as
the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. The second
appeal is maintainable under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005
before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, however,
unfortunately, the State Chief Information Commissioner usurped
the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission and had
proceeded to pass the impugned order. The second appeal has to
be heard by the “State Information Commission” and not by any
individual Information Commissioner as has been done in the
instant matter. The State Chief Information Commissioner in his
individual capacity cannot act as the Commission and cannot
pass orders in the capacity of the Commission while hearing a
statutory appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. On the said
ground itself, the impugned order appears to be without
jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further contended that the
information seeker was denied the information because the
information seeker requested information which was not in the
larger public interest of wildlife, particularly it was contrary to the
5
safety of the wild elephants. Thus, the information as sought by
the information seeker cannot be disclosed as the same relates to
safety of wildlife. The petitioner No.2/PIO acted in accordance
with the object of the Act of 2005 and, thus, neither petitioner
No.2/PIO nor the First Appellate Authority appear to be at fault in
issuing the orders. Respondent No.2/State Chief Information
Commissioner has failed to consider this aspect and passed the
impugned order, which is not in accordance with law as per the
facts of the case.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/State Chief
Information Commissioner submits that the present writ petition
deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit as the impugned
order dated 15.02.2021 has been passed by Respondent No.2 in
accordance with law and in consonance with the object and spirit
of the Act of 2005.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the writ petition.
8. The challenge to the impugned order is broadly founded on two
different grounds, firstly, a technical objection concerning the
jurisdiction and quorum of the State Information Commission and
secondly, a substantive challenge on the merits regarding the
sensitive nature of the information sought in relation to wildlife
safety.
9. The first ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that
as per Section 15(1) of the RTI Act the body known as State
Information Commission consists of multi members and the
6
members are referred to as the State Information Commissioners,
and therefore, the second appeal has to be heard and decided by
the State Commission and not by a member alone, does not
appear to be of any substance and is liable to be rejected. The
RTI Act which provides for the Public Information Officer, then the
First Appellate Authority and then the Second Appellate Authority
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and
being so each member of the State Information Commission and
the Central Information Commission is equally competent to
decide the issue involved on its own merits and there is no
question of the Commissioner alone usurping the jurisdiction of
the Commission and passing the order in his individual capacity,
as argued by the counsel for the petitioners.
10. In the matter of Central Information Commission v. DDA and
another reported in (2024) 8 SCC 812, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that absence of an explicit provision for
Benches does not negate the CIC’s authority to constitute them,
as such powers are implicitly included within the scope of the
CIC’s general superintendence and management responsibilities.
Further, the broad language of the RTI Act indicates an intention
to grant the CIC comprehensive authority to ensure the effective
and efficient functioning of the commission. Relevant portion of
the said decision reads as under:-
17. The absence of an explicit provision for Benches
does not negate the CIC’s authority to constitute
them, as such powers are implicitly included within
7
the scope of the CIC’s general superintendence
and management responsibilities. The broad
language of the RTI Act indicates an intention to
grant the CIC comprehensive authority to ensure
the effective and efficient functioning of the
Commission. The Delhi High Court’s narrow
reading of the provisions overlooked the inherent of
the CIC to manage the affairs of the Commission.
The RTI Act‘s broad language suggests that
legislative intent was to provide the CIC with the
necessary authority to implement measures that
ensure the Commission’s effective operation.
18. In the present case, the RTI Act should be
interpreted purposively, taking into account the
broader objectives of the legislation. The purpose of
the RTI Act is to promote transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public
authorities, ensuring citizens’ essential that the
Central Information Commission operates efficiently
and without undue procedural constraints. The
principle of purposive interpretation supports the
view that the CIC’s powers under Section 12(4) of
the RTI Act includes all necessary measures to
manage and direct the Commissioner’s affairs
effectively. This includes the ability to form Benches
to handle the increasing volume of cases. The
formation of Benches allows for the efficient
allocation of work and ensures the timely disposal
of cases, which is crucial for upholding the right to
information.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles
laid down in the aforesaid judgment, although the petitioners
herein fail on the technical ground of jurisdiction and quorum as
discussed above, this Court must nevertheless examine the
8
legality of the directions of the Commission (second ground).
12. In the case at hand, Respondent No.1 (information seeker)
submitted an application dated 15.01.2020 before the Public
Information Officer (PIO), Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund,
seeking certified copies of complete information in respect of
documents submitted by Wildlife S.O.S. to the Divisional Forest
Officer, Mahasamund, concerning the movement and habitat area
of the elephants, as obtained after placing radio collars on the
elephants. The PIO rejected the request on 14.02.2020 on the
ground that the disclosure was not in the larger interest of wildlife,
particularly it was contrary to the safety of the wild elephants, as
disclosing such critical data would place their precise movements
and habitats into the public domain.
13. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred a First Appeal, which was
dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, a Second
Appeal was filed before the State Information Commission. By
order dated 15.02.2021, the Commission allowed the appeal, set
aside the order of First Appellate Authority and passed a detailed
order directing to provide requested information to the respondent
and further a cost was also directed to be recovered from the PIO.
14. The information sought pertains to identification records, research
inputs, movement-related data and habitat-linked documentation
concerning wild elephants. Such information is intrinsically
sensitive and directly connected with wildlife protection measures.
Disclosure of such core data may expose critical ecological and
movement-related inputs, thereby potentially endangering wildlife
9
and undermining conservation efforts. Protection of wildlife and
ecological security forms part of the constitutional mandate under
Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.
15. The Public Information Officer had declined disclosure citing
threat to wildlife safety. The Commission, while directing
disclosure, failed to adequately consider the implications of
releasing sensitive wildlife-related records and did not properly
examine whether the information attracted exemptions under
Section 8 of the Act. On merits of the disclosure, the Commission
was under a statutory obligation to weigh the overriding public
interest against ecological safety and wildlife preservation, which it
failed to do.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion in para 14 and 15 supra, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
15.02.2021 suffers from illegality and perversity, as the same has
been passed without considering the sensitive nature of the
information sought or the exemptions available under Section 8 of
the Act.
17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P-
1) passed in Second Appeal No. A/3067/2020 by the State Chief
Information Commissioner, is hereby set aside.
18. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this Writ Petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay
