Gujarat High Court
Trushank Rameshbhai Joshi vs State Of Gujarat, Chief Information ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/547/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 547 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2021 of 2025
=============================================
TRUSHANK RAMESHBHAI JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 2,3
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1) Mr.Shivang M. Shah, learned advocate has put in appearance for the Chief Information Officer - Respondent No.1.
2) Having gone through the judgment and order dated 19.02.2025, impugned in the present petition, pertinent is to note that the application moved by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was with vague questions seeking information about the registration of a Trust in the name of 'Raghunath Mandir Trust'.
3) The Information Commissioner namely respondent No.1 has rightly rejected the application stating that the answers to vague questions cannot be given and that out of the record of more than fifty thousand (50,000) registered trusts, it is not possible to make any inquiry to answer the questions raised by the petitioner.
Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 04:59:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/547/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
4) Taking note of the reasoning given by the competent authority, as noted by the learned Single Judge and also the questions put forth by the petitioner in the application under Right to Information Act, we do not find any error in the decision of the competent authority.
5) No infirmity can be pointed out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAHIL S. RANGER Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 04:59:53 IST 2025