• M/s Baba Baidhyanath Minerals ( A Proprietorship Firm ) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 & Ors.

• M/s Baba Baidhyanath Minerals ( A Proprietorship Firm ), R/o Address - Village Salheona, Tahsil Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Through Its Sole Proprietor - Ramesh Kuamr Agrawal, S/o Late Chhallu Ram Agrawal, Aged Around 53 Years, R/o Village Godam, Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner

Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Director (Mining) District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

The Collector (Mining Department) Raigarh , Collectorate Building, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Sector - 19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

Sharad Yadav S/o Shri Ramu Yadav Ward Councilor - Ward No. 9, Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/07/2026

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- 2

(a) A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing and setting aside the letter/order dated 08.08.2022 (Anneuxre-P/1) issued by the respondent authorities in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. (b) A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the respondent authorities to strictly follow the statutory provisions of RTI Act, while handling the instant case relating to the demanding/providing third party information of the petitioner. (c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Cost of the petition may also be awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated

08.08.2022 (Annexure-P/1) issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.1/Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Director (Mining), District Raigarh (C.G.) is illegal, as the said Public Information Officer cannot direct a private person to provide information under the RTI Act. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497.

4. Learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 submits that the aforesaid notice is not illegal and is in accordance with law. Reference of notice is only to get the information, if the petitioner wishes to file application, he may be file the said information however, there is no any undue pressure from the concerned officer and if petitioner is not wishes to give the said information, he cannot be compelled to file such an information. 3

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that it is just a communication to the private petitioner, if he wishes to send the said information, he may send the information and if not he may not.

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

Since, the information sought is in respect of a private document, which is a owned by petitioner as such the respondent No.1/Public Information Officer or private respondent No.4 cannot seek such an information from the petitioner itself under the RTI Act. As the petitioner is not covered under the RTI Act being a private person. It is quite vivid that such an information cannot be sought from a private person under the RTI Act, as such the notice which has been issued to get the information from the petitioner by the respondent No.1/Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Director (Mining), District Raigarh (C.G.) is not in accordance with law.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 in para 63 has held as under:- “63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any “opinion” or “advice” to an applicant. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in 4 the definition of “information” in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Deepti Jha