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

[2026:RJ-JP:6546]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1718/2026

Shree Dhanraj Suman Son Of Shri Gopi Lal Suman, Resident Of Bamori Road, Ward No. 05, Anta Tehsil, Anta, District Baran, Rajasthan 325202.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Public Information Officer And Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Anta District Baran, Rajasthan. 325202.

¶8

State Information Commissioner, Rajasthan State Information Commission, Jhalana Link Road, O T S Chouraha, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur 302017.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner in person

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶12

Order

¶13

09/02/2026

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 – the Rajasthan State Information Commissioner, Jaipur, in Second Appeal No. RIC/BARA/A/2025/015414 and to direct the respondent No. 1 – Public Information Officer and Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Anta, District Baran, Rajasthan to provide information sought by the petitioner in the application filed by him under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’).

[2026:RJ-JP:6546]

[CW-1718/2026]

(2 of 4)

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, through an application dated 12.08.2025, filed under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005, sought information from respondent No. 1 regarding the Patta of 2769 square feet plot of land belonging to one Rajendra Prasad, s/o Gopilal, resident of Dugari Road, along with the attached documents which were issued by the Municipal Council, Anta in a public notice dated 30.08.2017. Upon receiving no information from the respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed first appeal on 17.09.2025 against respondent No. 1 under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2005. However, no decision was taken by the First Appellate Authority on the said appeal.

¶19

Pursuant to this, the petitioner filed a second appeal on 30.10.2025 before the respondent No. 2 against respondent No.1 under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005. The second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No. 2, terming the information sought by petitioner under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 as a third party information, vide its order dated 11.12.2025.

¶20

The petitioner present in person submits that he filed an application to seek information under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 as his elder brother, Rajendra Prasad, was attempting to obtain the Patta of their father’s land, however, the same was denied by respondent No. 2. He further submits that in the information released via public notice

¶21

(3 of 4) [CW-1718/2026]

¶22

[2026:RJ-JP:6546]

¶23

dated 30.06.2017, Khasra No. 1196/1864 of the Patta of 2769 square feet plot of land matches with the Khasra No. Mentioned in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2051-2054 and the name of petitioner’s father is mentioned in the same.

¶24

Considered the submissions made by the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record.

¶25

In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the facts on record, the short question which falls for consideration is: ‘Whether the order passed by respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside when the nature of information sought by the petitioner is confidential and may possibly have an adverse effect on the third party rights?’

¶26

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

¶27

“ (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. ”

¶28

In the light of the relevant provision quoted above,

¶29

and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this petition, the Court is of the opinion that there exists no obligation upon the public

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:6546]

[CW-1718/2026]

authority to disclose any personal information of a third party unless there is some prevailing need in larger public interest for it to be disclosed.

¶34

In the present case, the petitioner filed an application seeking copies of the documents relating to the Patta of an immovable property which have been issued by a third party – Municipal Council, Anta and are thus, classified as confidential documents with respect to the third party rights. Therefore, the action of the respondents Authority denying the personal information to the petitioner was valid and justified.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is bereft of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶37

Ashish Kumar /86

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Piyush Son of Shri Ramdev Singh Vs the Chief Information Commissioner

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