IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

AT BILASPUR

Writ Appeal No. / 2019

APPELLANT :1. Abhishek Kumar Choubey, son of

shri Naresh Kumar Choubey,
aged about 36 years, R / o –
quarter 1 – A, street – 35, sector
– 4, bhilai, district – durg,
Chhattisgarh.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : 1. Chhattisgarh state information

Commission through Information
Commissioner, North Block,
Sector – 19 , Atal nagar, Raipur
(C.G.). 492002
Controller Chhattisgarh vyavsayik
2.
pariksha mandal, North Block
Sector 19 Atal nagar, Raipur,
( C. G.) 492002
Secretary , Chhattisgarh vyavsayik
3.
pariksha mandal, North Block
Sector 19 Atal nagar, Raipur,
( C. G.) 492002
WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION
BENCH, ACT 2006

This writ appeal is being preferred against order dated

26.08.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2857/2019, whereby, the

learned honorable single bench, has dismissed writ petition of

the appellant. A certified copy of the impugned order dated

26.08.2019 is filed as ANNEXURE A/1. The above named

appellant is filing present writ appeal on following facts and

grounds:

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That, it is most humbly prayed, on 13 / 10 / 17 appellant

filed rti application under section 6 ( 1) of right to

information act 2005( in short RTI act hereafter) .

Plain English translation of application was ` copy of

license of drivers employed in your office is being collected

from 2015 onwards, hence from 2015 onwards all copies

of license submitted by drivers , may kindly provide

certified copy of all those photocopies and also provide

photocopy of driving license of Hon’ble Mohan Sahu ji. ”

2. It is most respectfully submitted that, on getting no reply

from PIO in stipulated time given in RTI act, appellant filed

 first appeal application under RTI act, to second

respondent who was first appellate authority ( in short FAA

hereafter ) , on 13 /11/17 in which appellant clearly wrote

in English “ 1a - SPIO has not provided information in

prescribed time given in RTI act 2005 . photocopy of

driving license of drivers of CG Vyapam have not been

provided under RTI act 2005 ” and appellant cited cic

decision which stated that when a person applies for a job

or gives information about him to a public authority as an

employee , all these are public activities, hence drivers

submitting copy of driving license at time of their

recruitment, to secure public office post in a public

authority, is a public activity.

3. Further most humbly it is prayed that, third respondent as

public information officer( in short P.I.O. hereafter)

accepted said rti application, and denied request for

information citing section 8 (1) j of RTI act.

Reason for deemed denial given to petitioner, was

section 8 1 j of RTI act and no where request application

was termed unclear or vague or not understandable, which

was also evident by plain translation of PIO reply as follows

“ under RTI act 2005, you have requested to provide

 photocopy of license of drivers working in VYAPAM office.

be informed in this subject that desired information is

related to section 8 (1) j of act, hence not possible to

provide ”. No where PIO termed request application as

unclear or erroneous , instead his words clearly exhibited ,

what information appellant sought in his RTI application .

4. That, Due to delayed reply by PIO, appellant filed first

appeal rejoinder, in which he clearly stated to consider

submission of license as a public activity as per CIC

decision and wrote that one driver of other state was

employed in CGVYAPAM and it was doubted that license

renewal of one driver namely mohan sahu was not done

and due to these reasons, at least for larger public interest,

information must be provided .

5. That, on not getting reply from FAA in stipulated time given

in RTI act, petitioner filed second appeal under RTI act, to

information commissioner on 13/12/17 , which was

throughout in English, clearly understandable and public

activity involved in submission of copy of driving license by

drivers of CGVYAPAM, was clearly cited.

6. That, on 3/1/18 FAA issued his first appeal decision, in

which he wrote “ Abhishek Kumar Choubey has asked for

 photocopy of license of drivers employed in Vyapam office

” and he upheld denial of information under section 8 1 j,

again no where he termed RTI application as vague or

unclear. In fact he gave completely non speaking order on

point of public activity involved in submission of driving

license in office, by drivers of CGVYAPAM.

7. That, information commissioner also upheld denial of copy

of driving license under section 8 (1) j of RTI act ,

submitted by drivers of CGVYAPAM and no where he

decided or gave speaking orders , on public activity

involved when a driver submits copy of his driving license

to public authority, to secure job in that public office. In

fact, he suppressed point of public activity involved in

disclosure of desired information.

8. That, learned honorable single bench, also in order dated

26/8/2019 didn’t considered the fact that copy of driving

license submitted by drivers of CGVYAPAM, is part of their

recruitment process and hence is a public activity and

citizens have right to know and get copy of driving license,

submitted by government vehicle drivers , to occupy public

office posts.

It was the first time that in hearing respondent 1,raised

 objection that RTI application is vague, though

information commissioner never adjudicated such facts in

his own decision, neither in PIO reply nor in FAA decision,

RTI application was termed vague but it was first time

declared vague in impugned order.

That though respondent 2 and 3 by their replies in

quasi judicial decision have narrated what appellant asked

for, clearly but then by sudden in judicial hearing they have

first time said RTI application filed was vague. The

submitted fact that RTI application is vague and which

was, no where ever adjudicated in RTI reply, first appeal

and second appeal decisions, given under RTI act became

a cause for denial in order of learned single bench.

GROUNDS

(i) For the learned Single bench, while dismissing the writ

petition of the appellant relied on section 8 1 j but has not

considered line of section 8 (1)j which reads as “ the

disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity

or interest ”. When a driver applies for job in public authority

CGVYAPAM and submits copy of his driving license as part

of his recruitment process, it is a public activity and

information has to be disclosed, no need to prove larger

 public interest involved in such disclosure ”

(ii) That particular of license and information of all license

renewed after 2015 were never sought , but indeed copy

of license of drivers were sought. No word like renewal (

naveenikaran in hindi) was written in initial RTI application.

Even respondents in their each reply have wrote that

petitioner has sought copy of driving license, but at last in

Hon’ble Court , they have termed application as vague, in

spite having full knowledge, about what information was

asked, hence objection raised by respondents that RTI

application is vague, needs to be set aside while deciding

the matter but in impugned order, respondents statement

given first time ever got accepted , and point of public

activity involved in disclosure of desired information needs

consideration .

(iii) Because, in cases of denial of information under section 8 1j

of RTI act, one of the guiding principles of the RTI Act 8 1 j

(last para) is –“information which cannot be denied to

Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any

person.” But none among respondents answered question

of law that “ will they deny furnishing copy of driving license

of drivers recruited in CGVYAPAM, to parliament/ M. P. ” .

 If not then why common man has been denied the same

information which can be given to parliament ?

(iv) Because, the legislature has also taken cognizance of the

large level illiteracy and unawareness about the RTI Act and

in section 5(3) imposes a duty, more in nature of humane

consideration, to help the persons while they seek

information from the public authorities. This duty has to be

discharged by the PIO in letter and spirit of act,

Even if RTI application was vague or not understandable,

PIO was duty bound to assist applicant . Not only PIO

accepted application, all respondents wrote in their

decisions , what was the requisite information clearly , and

were denying under section 8 1j and never informed

appellant that his RTI application is vague, much less vague

application is a ground for rejection. Now at in writ appeal

hearing raising completely new fact , that rti application was

vague and a reason along with section 8 1 j for deemed

denial, is against letter and spirit of section 5 (3) of RTI

act. Even if appellant want to correct his mistake in

application, he has been informed after huge expenses

occurred and with long delay, hence their remark that

application was vague at stage of writ needs to be

 dismissed.

(v) Because, section 7 (8) I of RTI act, specifically lays duty to

communicate RTI applicant, reasons for rejections of

information, All respondents in their quasi judicial decision

have taken shelter of section 8 (1) j of RTI act, to deny copy

of driving license, of drivers of CG Vyapam , submitted to

secure a public post and to withdraw salary from public

funds and never termed rti application as vague or unclear,

and all of sudden holding application is vague in writ petition

hearing is in violation of section 7 (8) I of RTI act and

respondents have no right to raise such objections when

they can’t adjudicate this fact in their own decisions and

have never informed petitioner that his application is vague,

in time limit given in section 7 (8) of rti act.

(i) Because ,Petitioner had right to know reasons of rejection

in 30 days, as per section 7 (8) of RTI act, and if vague

application was reason for deemed denial, it should have

been raised by PIO itself in his reply , not in writ petition

hearing . Hence to justify deemed denial, raising objection

that RTI application is vague in last moment in Hon’ble Court

and not in time limit given in RTI act is against Section 7(8)

in The Right To Information Act, 2005 which reads as (8)

 Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1),

the Central Public Information Officer or State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be shall communicate

to the person making the request,—(i) the reasons for such

rejection;

(ii) Because, never ever vague / unclear word was used by PIO,

FAA or information commissioner in their quasi judicial

decisions/orders. They have taken shelter of such reasoning

first time only in writ appeal hearing and petitioner never

got opportunity to answer such immediate blames charged

on him, which is against principle of natural justice.

(iii) Because, the writ petition was also dismissed without

answering question of law that, “ weather copy of driving

license submitted by drivers of CGVYAPAM, as part of their

recruitment is a public activity or not ”, in same way as all

respondents left this question of law, unanswered in their

every quasi judicial decisions.

(iv) For the Hon’ble Delhi high Court in the Union Of India vs

Anita Singh on 31 October, 201 3has observed as

under:-

“2 "Public activity" qua a person are those activities which

 are performed by the person in discharge of a public duty,

i.e. in the public domain. There is an inherent public interest

involved in the discharge of such activities, as all public

duties are expected to be discharged in public interest.

Consequently, information of a person which is related to,

or has a bearing on his public activities, is not exempt from

disclosure under the scheme and provisions of the Act,

whose primary object is to ensure an informed citizenry and

transparency of information and also to contain corruption”

But respondents, without considering public activity

involved, repeatedly focused on larger public interest ,

stating it as necessary for disclosure of requisite

information, which is completely illogical demand. If in such

way, omitting public activity clause, furnishing of

information will be barred, each and every document like

tender , marksheets of employees etc will become third

party information, and will set a very wrong precedent in

history, hence impugned order needs revision of Hon’ble

Court.

(v) For reason that The Apex Court in Union of India v Rahul

Rasgotra,(1994) 2 SCC 600. See also Vijay Prakash v Union

of India, AIR 2010 DEL 7. observed that

 confidentiality of government files and confidential notes

made by public or government authorities and their claim to

withhold the disclosure thereof, has to be decide by a Court

by examining the relevant files or notes in camera. Where

the Court after examining the concerned files/notes reaches

a conclusion that exemption from discloser is unwarranted,

it may reject government's claim of exemption. The Court in

deciding whether the exemption claimed by public authority

in justified or not, shall apply the test of prejudice that the

non-disclosure is likely to cause to the public interest ”

but in this case respondents didn’t applied test of prejudice

and whether documents were submitted in a course of

public activity or not.

(vi) Because, though cited CIC decision didn’t had binding force

but it had persuasive force and a section of law narrating

that the phrase “disclosure of which has no relationship to

any public activity or interest” means that the information

must have been given in the course of a public activity. when

a person applied for job or gives information about himself

to a public authority , as an employee , all these are public

activities, but none among respondents once mentioned the

phrase public activity ( of RTI act section 8 1 j) in their

 decisions given ,while holding driving license of drivers

submitted during recruitment process, is a third party

information.

(vii) Because, in case Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information

Commissioner ... on 3 December, 2007 in Hon’ble

Delhi High Court, it is written - “As is reflected in its

preamble paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote

transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the Government

and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This

spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the

provisions contained therein.

13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the

rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section

8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must

therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be

interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself.,”

But by terming , submitted copy of driving license by drivers

of CGVYAPAM during recruitment process, is a third party

information and no reasoned order on whether it’s a public

activity or not , is interpretation of act which casts shadow

on the very right itself.

(viii) Because , respondents were from very beginning, fully

aware about what information was asked and denied

repeatedly to provide copy of driving license citing 8 (1) j,

hence now in writ petition, raising objection that application

is vague is totally arbitrary reasoning and should not become

a bar to provide requisite information and as petitioner is

now also entitled to get desired information as he has payed

proper RTI fees.

(ix) Because , if any doubt about query or something was

unclear to PIO , he should have followed law section 7 (8)

of RTI act and should have pointed such objections in his

reply. By which petitioner would have filed new application

with correction.

Raising objection in Writ petition , that RTI application

was vague and was a reason for denial, first time in Hon’ble

Court, though they have written in their each and every RTI

decision about what appellant was asking in RTI application

, shows how they change their statements and reasoning,

directly in front of Hon’ble Court. Barring disclosure of

requisite information on such reasoning, in matter which

should be decided on basis of written documentary evidence

raised as per RTI act, without considering public activity

 involved in case, is not correct as per eyes of law and RTI

act section 8 (1) j. The very section of RTI act, cited by

respondents repeatedly but with exclusion of clause “ public

activity”.

(x) That neither any respondent gave speaking order on clause

of statue I.e. public activity involved in disclosure of desired

information. They repeatedly demanded to explain larger

public interest involved, whereas public activity in itself

involves larger public interest and public activity further

needs no evidence to prove larger public interest.

PRAYER

It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly

be pleased to allow this writ appeal and may kindly set-aside the

order dated 26.08.2019 passed in W.P. (C) 2857/2019 and relief

claimed in the writ petition may kindly be granted, in the interest

of justice.

Bilaspur (Yogeshwar Sharma)

Dated: 3 .09.2019 Counsel for the Appellant
 CERTIFICATE

It is certified that due care has been taken in the case to

comply with the provisions of Chhattisgarh High Court Rules.

Bilaspur (Yogeshwar Sharma)

Dated: 3.09.2019 Counsel for the Appellant
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR

Writ Appeal No. / 2019

APPELLANT : Abhishek Kumar Choubey

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh state information

commission & others

INDEX

S.No Particulars Annex Page

1. Synopsis.
2. Memo of Writ Appeal with certificate.
3. Affidavit
4. A certified copy of the impugned order
dated 25.01.2018 A/1
5. Copy of CGSIC order dated 28/5/19 A/2
6. Copy of RTI application dated 13/10/17 A/3
7. Vakalatnama

Bilaspur (Yogeshwar Sharma)

Dated: 3 .09.2019 Counsel for the Appellant
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR

Writ Appeal No. / 2019

APPELLANT : Abhishek Kumar Choubey

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh state information

commission & others
SYNOPSIS
Appellant filed RTI application under RTI act 2005 and

sought copy of driving license of drivers submitted after year

2015 as part of their recruitment process , in which PIO and FAA

denied desired information citing section 8 (1) j of RTI act. Due

to which appellant filed second appeal to information

commissioner and information commissioner also upheld PIO

decision. They all had clearly understood RTI application as their

replies exhibit and never termed RTI application as vague. They

also never considered/adjudicated petitioner prayer that copy of

driving license of drivers recruited in CGVYAPAM submitted after

year 2015 , as part of their recruitment process is clearly a public

activity hence exemption of section 8 (1) j will not get attracted,

much less any larger public interest for disclosure of requisite

information, has to be proved, as public activity in itself involve

larger public interest.

All of sudden in writing appeal hearing respondents termed

RTI application as vague and a reason for deemed denial of

information, which should have been raised by PIO, in his RTI

reply as per section 7 (8) I of RTI act. In spite being having full

knowledge of query raised in RTI application and quoting same

query of petitioner in each RTI decision, respondents at last in

writ petition hearing said that , “ RTI application was vague .

Learned Judge dismissed appellant writ petition terming

RTI application as vague and copy of driving license of drivers of

cgvyapam, submitted during recruitment process was a third

party information. No one ever decided on fact that Section 8 1

G of RTI act prohibits disclosure of personal information which

has no relationship with a public activity or interest. therefore to

qualify this exemption, the information must satisfy criteria that

, the phrase disclosure of which has no relationship to any public

activity or interest means that the information must have been

given in the course of a public activity . when a person applies

for a job or gives information about him to public authorities as

an employee , all these are public activities. Hence copy of

driving license submitted by CGVYAPAM drivers to secure posts

in public office is a public activity. But as learned judge dismissed

appellant petitioner without deciding public activity point

involved in case, hence this petition is being presented.

DATE WISE EVENTS & PARTICULARS

13/10/17 Petitioner filed the RTI application .

28/5/19 Information commissioner issued his order
26/8/19 Learned single Judge issued impugned order.

Bilaspur (Yogeshwar Sharma)

Dated: 3.09.2019 Counsel for the Appellant
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR

Writ Appeal No. / 2019

APPELLANT : Abhishek Kumar Choubey

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh state information

commission & others
AFFIDAVIT

I, Abhishek Kumar Choubey, son of shri Naresh Kumar

Choubey, aged about 36 years, R / o – quarter 1 – A, street –
35, sector – 4, bhilai, district – durg, Chhattisgarh (C.G.), do
hereby state on oath as under :-

1. That, I am the Appellant in the instant writ appeal and as

such am fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That, the Writ appeal, have been drafted by my counsel as
per my instructions.
3. That, the contents of the writ appeal are true and correct
to my personal knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, Abhishek Kumar Choubey, the above named
deponent do hereby verify that the contents of above affidavit
made in paras 1 to 3 are true to the best of my personal
knowledge and belief.
Verified and signed on third day of september , 2019
at Bilaspur (C.G.).

Identified by me DEPONENT