Manas Kumar Sinha vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 430 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Manas Kumar Sinha vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And ... on 17 July, 2025

OD-21
                               ORDER SHEET
                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                           ORIGINAL SIDE

                             WPO/333/2025

                     MANAS KUMAR SINHA
                             VS
         THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date: 17th July, 2025.


                                                               APPEARANCE:
                                                  Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                          Mrs. Tanusree Das, Adv.
                                                                ...for the petitioner.

                                                          Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv.
                                                          Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv.
                                                                      ...for the KMC.



        The Court : The present writ petition challenges the order dated

23.04.2025

issued by the State Public Information Officer (SPIO),

whereby the information sought by the petitioner was denied on the

ground that the same is exempted under Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005,(hereinafter referred to as the "RTI Act") as it

pertains to record of deliberation of officers.

The petitioner's case is that he submitted an application dated

17.02.2025 under the RTI Act, seeking certain information. Upon

receiving no response thereto, the petitioner preferred a first appeal

before the First Appellate Authority. By an order dated 17.04.2025, the

First Appellate Authority directed the State Public Information Officer

(SPIO) to furnish the requisite information/documents within fifteen

(15) working days.

However, by a communication dated 23.04.2025, the SPIO rejected the

petitioner's request, stating that the information sought was exempted

under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by such denial, the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

The petitioner contends that the impugned letter of rejection is illegal

and perverse, as it records that the SPIO had acted based on the

opinion of the Law Department in refusing the requested information.

According to the petitioner, such reliance is contrary to the law laid

down in Md. Nasiruddin vs. Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta&Ors.,

reported at (2017) 3 CAL LT 394 (HC). The petitioner places reliance on

the following extract from the said judgment:

"The SPIO has not at all acted as an independent authority

in the present case. After receiving the first application

from the petitioner, the Section Officer (RTI Cell) sought

guidance from the Section Officer / Superintendent of the

Recruitment Cell as to whether the information sought

could be disclosed. This is clearly impermissible. The RTI

Cell ought not to seek opinion, advice or guidance from

another administrative unit on the permissibility or

propriety of disclosing information. Once such opinion is

sought, the SPIO's independence is compromised."

On this basis, it is the petitioner's submission that the SPIO is

statutorily mandated to act independently and cannot be guided by the

opinion of any other authority or department while disposing of an RTI

application.

However, upon perusal of the record and consideration of the

submissions made, this Court finds the reliance placed by the

petitioner on the judgment in Md. Nasiruddin to be misplaced. The

facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable. The impugned

communication dated 23.04.2025 does not disclose that the SPIO

mechanically followed any directive from the Law Department, nor does

it suggest that the SPIO failed to apply his independent mind. The mere

reference to the "opinion of the Law Department" in the rejection letter

does not, ipso facto, imply that the SPIO acted under external influence

or abdicated his statutory responsibility.

In administrative practice, it is not uncommon for public information

officers to seek clarifications or legal input regarding the applicability of

statutory exemptions, particularly when complex legal or confidentiality

issues are involved. The act of obtaining legal opinion, in and of itself,

cannot be construed as illegal or improper unless there is clear

evidence that the authority failed to exercise independent judgment or

acted on dictation. In the present case, there is no such material on

record to support such an inference.

Further, Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act specifically provides that

information which would impede the process of investigation or

apprehension or prosecution of offenders may be withheld. Whether a

particular piece of information falls within the ambit of this exemption

involves an element of discretion and assessment, which the SPIO

appears to have exercised.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has an

alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under the RTI Act, by way

of a second appeal before the State Information Commission. Despite

this, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no procedural

impropriety, illegality, or absence of independent consideration on the

part of the SPIO. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is found to

be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ

petition, and the same stands dismissed.

Accordingly, WPO No. 333 of 2025 is dismissed.

(GAURANG KANTH, J.)

K.B AR(CR)