Dismissed¶38

Piyush Son of Shri Ramdev Singh v. the Chief Information Commissioner

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2026CW/1306/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: RTI Act 2005; Section 8(1)(d); Section 6; Sections 19(1), 19(3), 19(5); larger public interest; disclosure of police officer's movement; government vehicle logbook; Rajasthan State Information Commission; second appeal RIC/SIKR/A/2024/015115; ex-parte dismissal; preponement of hearing notice dated 10.01.2025; writ under Articles 226 and 227; FIR No. 207/2008 PS Kotwali Fatehpur; pistol recovery verification; Sikar; CW-1306/2026.

What did the court decide?

Larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of the information in the present case, as the information was sought by the petitioner only in order to verify the factual correctness of the recovery proceedings wherein a pistol was recovered from his brother. ¶36

Piyush Son of Shri Ramdev Singh Vs the Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside when the information requested by the petitioner does not warrant disclosure in larger public interest? +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

¶36

Ratio / Principle

It may not be appropriate to disclose the movement of a police officer.

¶36

Key takeaways

With respect to the Section 6 application, respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that the specific information sought had not been entered into the logbook, and the entire day's logbook could not be supplied to him as per Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 2005.ratio¶37
The date of hearing was preponed from 09.04.2025 to 06.02.2025 by respondent No. 1 only after issuing a notice dated 10.01.2025, i.e., notice of the preponement was in fact issued.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1306/2026, decided 09/02/2026, Ganesh Ram Meena, J.) challenging the ex-parte judgement dated 06.02.2025 of the Rajasthan State Information Commission dismissing the petitioner's second appeal (RIC/SIKR/A/2024/015115) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner had sought (application dated 01.07.2024 under Section 6) a certified copy of the logbook of the Government vehicle allotted to the Investigating Officer who, during investigation of FIR No. 207/2008 (PS Kotwali, Fatehpur), recovered a pistol from the petitioner's brother, in order to verify the recovery proceedings; the PIO replied on 20.07.2024 denying the information as confidential, and the first appeal was dismissed on 14.08.2024. Held: larger public interest does not warrant disclosure, as it would not be appropriate to disclose the movement of a police officer; the specific information was not entered in the logbook and the entire day's logbook could not be supplied per Section 8(1)(d); the hearing preponed from 09.04.2025 to 06.02.2025 was preceded by notice dated 10.01.2025. Petition dismissed as bereft of merit; pending applications disposed.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6545]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1306/2026

¶4

Piyush Son Of Shri Ramdev Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 33, Fatehpur District Sikar, Rajasthan 332001

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission, Jhalana Link Road, Ots-Mnit Chauraha, Jln Marg, Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Public Informatiojn Officer, Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur-16, Rajasthan.

¶9

The State Public Information Officer And Additional Superintendent Of Police, Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶10

The First Appellate Authority (Police Department), Superintendent Of Police, Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶11

The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Headquarters (Phq), Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015

¶12

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Swami

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶16

Order

¶17

09/02/2026

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Rajasthan State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. RIC/SIKR/A/2024/015115 whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:6545]

[CW-1306/2026]

The brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2009, during investigation in FIR No. 207/2008 dated 27.12.2008 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur, the Investigating Officer recovered a pistol from petitioner’s brother, Manish Mahla S/o Ramdev Singh. The petitioner filed an application on 01.07.2024 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’) seeking certified copy of the logbook of the Government Vehicle allotted to the said Investigating Officer. Pursuant to this, the respondent No. 3 – the State Public Information Officer and Additional Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan gave a reply on 20.07.2024 to the application dated 01.07.2024 whereby the required information was denied being confidential in nature.

¶23

The petitioner preferred a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2005 against the said reply which was dismissed by the respondent No. 4, the First Appellate Authority (Police Department), Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan vide its judgement dated 14.08.2024. The petitioner then preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005, regarding which, a notice was issued on 29.11.2024 by respondent No. 1, the Second Appellate Authority, fixing the matter for hearing on 09.04.2025 and a second notice was issued on 10.01.2025

¶24

(3 of 4) [CW-1306/2026]

¶25

[2026:RJ-JP:6545]

¶26

preponing the date of hearing to 06.02.2025. The second appeal was dismissed ex-parte by respondent No. 1 vide its impugned judgement dated 06.02.2025.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent notice dated 10.01.2025 whereby the date of hearing was preponed from 09.04.2025 to 06.02.2025 was not served upon the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent No. 4 passed a non-speaking order and did not discharge its burden under Section 19(5) of the Act of 2005.

¶28

Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the material made available on record.

¶29

In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts on record, the substantial question which arose for consideration is: ‘Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside when the information requested by the petitioner does not warrant disclosure in larger public interest?’

¶30

The relevant provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 2005 reads as under:-

¶31

“ (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. ”

¶32

Having regard to the relevant provision quoted above, and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:6545]

[CW-1306/2026]

the case and prayer made in this petition, the Court is of the opinion that larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of the information in the present case as the information was sought by the petitioner in order to verify the factual correctness of the recovery proceedings wherein a pistol was recovered from his brother. It may not be appropriate to disclose the movement of a police officer.

¶37

With respect to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act of 2005, the respondent No. 4 clearly informed the petitioner that the specific information sought by him has not been entered into the logbook and the entire day’s logbook cannot be supplied to him as per Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 2005. Further, the date of hearing was preponed from 09.04.2025 to 06.02.2025 by the respondent No. 1 only after issuing a notice dated 10.01.2025.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is bereft of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

¶39

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶40

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶41

Ashish Kumar /85

Piyush Son of Shri Ramdev Singh v. the Chief Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Son of Shri Ramdev Singh v. the Chief Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Jain S/O Shri Kailash Chand Jain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dargah Committee Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dargah Committee Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shree Dhanraj Suman Son of Shri Gopi Lal Suman Vs Public Information Officer and Executive Officer

Trilok Patni, S/O Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Aarti Yadav Daughter of Shri Rajkumar Wife of Shri Rajiv Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan