Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Monika Pateriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25670
1 WP-37111-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37111 of 2025
SMT MONIKA PATERIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:-
"1. A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing
respondent no. 3 to provide opportunity of hearing and
representation under section 11 of the Act, 2005 before
providing any personal information of the present petitioner
to third party.
2. An appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be
issued prohibiting the respondent no. 3 from giving any
personal information of the present petitioner to any third
party without the consent of the present petitioner.
3. An appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be
issued directing respondent no. 2 & 3 to decide the objection
(Annexure P/3 & P/4) submitted by the present petitioner.
4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deem fit-in
the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be
granted."
3. Earlier, when the matter was taken up for consideration on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25670
2 WP-37111-2025
23.09.2025, the counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that, under the
garb of an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
(hereinafter referred as "Act, 2005) certain personal information pertaining
to the petitioners are being sought by third parties who are allegedly not
connected with the information. He submits that earlier also, one Rakesh
Singh Kushwah moved an application under the Act, 2005 seeking
information pertaining to the marriage certificate of the petitioners. In terms
of Section 8(j) of the Act, 2005, the petitioners herein were duly noticed by
the respondent No.3. The petitioners submitted their objections to the
disclosure of the said information but the result of the said proceedings was
never communicated to them.
4. It was further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the petitioners have learnt that respondent No.4 had now filed
a similar application under RTI and the petitioners apprehend that without
following the procedure in terms of Section 8(j) of the Act, 2005, the
personal information may be supplied to the respondent No.4. Accordingly,
he insisted that instructions be called for from the counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2. Accordingly, vide order dated 23.09.2025, the petition was
directed to be posted in the week commencing 13.10.2025 awaiting the
instructions. In the intermittent, the respondent No.2 had filed its reply on
07.10.2025.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
perusal of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.3, filed along
with the return of the respondent No.2, indicates that the request for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25670
3 WP-37111-2025
disclosure of personal information pertaining to the petitioners was earlier
denied by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.5. However, while
referring to the other documents dated 20.08.2025, 22.08.2025 (Annexure
R/3), 28.08.2025 (Annexure R/4) and 18.09.2025 (Annexure R/5) filed along
with the return indicates that the same authority, on the similar application
filed by Harish Chandra had now directed for providing the information
pertaining to the marriage certificate of the petitioners to him and in fact said
Harish Chandra has been provided the said information prior to filing of the
present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the
petitioners have moved an application for issuance of ad-interim writ bearing
I.A. No.12631/2025 as well as I.A. No.12371/2025, which is an application
for impleadment of one Shri Harish Chandra as respondent No.6, who has
been provided the information by the respondent No.3. An application
bearing No.I.A. No.12365/2025 has also been filed by the petitioners seeking
deletion of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were earlier impleaded as
respondents in the present petition. Further an I.A. No.12366/2025 has been
filed by the petitioners seeking amendment in the writ petition so as to
question the correctness of the orders dated 28.08.2025 and 18.09.2025
whereby, the information has been provided to the newly proposed
respondent.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since
Section 8 (j) of the Act, 2005 casts a bar on providing the personal
information pertaining to the third party, the action of the respondent No.3 in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25670
4 WP-37111-2025
directing the disclosure of personal information of the petitioners is illegal
and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that
the impugned action deserves to be quashed, and the interlocutory
applications filed in the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 raises a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the
present petition in view of the subsequent developments. He submits that
even for the relief claimed in the instant writ petition, the petitioners had an
adequate statutory remedy to invoke the first and second appellate
jurisdictions under Section 19 of the Act, 2005. He further submits that, in
the event the petitioners are aggrieved by any subsequent orders of the Public
Information Officer, the aforesaid remedy continues to remain available to
them. Accordingly, the petitioners cannot be permitted to bypass the
statutory and efficacious remedy provided under the Act and thereby enlarge
the scope of the present writ petition. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal
of the writ petition.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The issue of maintainability of the writ petition, even in the
availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal or revision provided
under the statute itself etc. has been considered in various judgments by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India
Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held as under :-
"44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the
powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25670
5 WP-37111-2025
Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs
including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide
and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at
the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed
restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to
keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a
rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to
fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order
ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative
remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular
legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his
grievance."
12. The exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, even in the availability of an alternative statutory
remedy has been held to be a matter pertaining to self-restraint and judicial
discretion in the given facts and circumstances of the case by the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. The contentions raised by the petitioners that the proper procedure
has not been followed by the respondent No.3/Public Information Officer in
supplying the personal information of the petitioners as contained under
Section 11 of the Act, 2005 or the applicability of Section 8(j) of the Act,
2005 can very well be considered by the first and second appellate authority
provided under the Act of 2005 itself.
14. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners claiming limited
relief as stated hereinabove. Since, the aforesaid relief claimed by the
petitioners in the instant writ petition stood infructuous prior to filing of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25670
6 WP-37111-2025
instant writ petition, and during its pendency, inasmuch as the information
was supplied vide orders dated 28.08.2025 and 18.09.2025, this Court is not
inclined to enter into the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners as regards the dates/procedure etc.
adopted by the Public Information Officer in providing the information.
15. Accordingly, admission of the petition is declined. The liberty is
reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek remedy for their grievances
before the first and second appellate authority in terms of Section 19 of Act,
2005.
16. It is made clear that, in case the petitioners avail the remedy of
appeal in terms of Section 19 of the Act, 2005, the petitioners shall be
entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period spent
before this Court.
17. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.
18. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
