[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narsa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:10022-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1048/2025
Narsa Ram S/o Rajuram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of
Gram Post Chibi, Tehsil Gida, District Balotra (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Rajasthan
State Information Commission, Jhalana Link Road, O.t.s.
Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, (Raj.).
2. The District And Sessions Judge, Balotra, District Balotra,
(Raj.).
3. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (Public Information
Officer), Judicial Department, District Barmer, (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narsa Ram (present in person)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG
Ms. Aditi Sharma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 20.01.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 20.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 18.03.2026
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the
appellant claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this Special Appeal (Writ) may kindly be allowed and
impugned order dated 07.05.2025 may kindly be quashed and
set aside, and the writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 6071/2025
( titled as Narsa Ram VS. State of Raj. & Ors.) may kindly be
allowed as prayed.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:17:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10022-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1048/2025]
Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble Court
may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the appellant."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner filed
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6071/2025 before this Court
challenging the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting
his application submitted under the Right to Information Act,
2005.
2.1. The appellant had submitted an application dated 26.09.2024
to the Public Information Officer, namely the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barmer, seeking certain information including a
certified copy of the order-sheet and had enclosed a postal order
of Rs.10/- as prescribed under the provisions of the Act. It is the
case of the appellant that despite submission of the said
application along with the requisite fee, the information sought
was not supplied and the application came to be rejected by the
concerned authority.
2.2. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the appellant
preferred a first appeal dated 25.10.2024 before the competent
authority, however, the said appeal also came to be dismissed vide
order dated 13.11.2024. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a
second appeal before the Rajasthan State Information
Commission, which according to the appellant, was also dismissed
without proper consideration of the matter.
2.3. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action of the authorities,
the appellant approached the learned Single Judge by filing the
above-mentioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge, however,
vide order dated 07.05.2025, dismissed the writ petition primarily
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:17:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10022-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1048/2025]
on the ground that the original application as well as the appeal
preferred by the appellant were not submitted in accordance with
the prescribed procedure. Aggrieved by the said order, the
appellant has preferred the present Special Appeal (Writ).
3. The appellant, appearing in person, submitted that the
learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ
petition without properly appreciating the facts and material
available on record. It was contended that the appellant had
submitted an application dated 26.09.2024 seeking certain
information including certified copy of the order-sheet from the
office of the Public Information Officer along with the prescribed
postal order of Rs.10/- in terms of the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005. However, the respondent authorities failed
to furnish the information sought and the application was rejected
without valid justification.
3.1. It was further submitted that aggrieved by the rejection of
the RTI application, the appellant preferred a first appeal dated
25.10.2024 before the competent authority, which also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2024. Thereafter, the appellant
preferred a second appeal before the Rajasthan State Information
Commission, however the same was also dismissed without proper
application of mind.
3.2. The appellant submitted that the observation made in the
impugned order that the RTI application and the appeal were not
in the prescribed format is incorrect. According to the appellant,
the application seeking information was submitted along with the
prescribed fee and in compliance with the procedure contemplated
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:17:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10022-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1048/2025]
under the RTI Act, yet the respondent authorities refused to
provide the information.
3.3. It was further contended that the right to obtain information
is a statutory right under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and denial of such information by the
authorities is arbitrary and contrary to the object and spirit of the
Act.
3.4. On these submissions, the appellant prayed that the order
dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside
and the respondent authorities be directed to furnish the
information sought by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference in the present Special Appeal. It
was contended that the RTI application submitted by the appellant
was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the relevant
rules framed thereunder.
4.1. It was submitted that the Public Information Officer rejected
the original application on the ground that the same was not filed
in the prescribed manner and format. The first appellate authority,
upon consideration of the matter, also dismissed the appeal for the
very same reason that the appeal preferred by the appellant was
not in the prescribed format as required under the applicable
rules.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that when a particular
statute prescribes a specific procedure for seeking information,
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:17:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10022-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1048/2025]
the applicant is required to adhere to such procedure. In the
present case, both the original authority as well as the appellate
authority have categorically recorded that the application and the
appeal filed by the appellant were not in accordance with the
prescribed procedure.
4.3. It was thus contended that the learned Single Judge, after
considering the material available on record, rightly held that no
interference was called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further pointed out
that while dismissing the writ petition, liberty has already been
granted to the appellant to file a fresh application before the
competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
4.4. On these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents
prayed that the present Special Appeal being devoid of merit
deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5.1. This Court observes that the writ petition filed by the
appellant came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge
primarily on the ground that the original application submitted
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as well as the appeal
preferred by the appellant were not filed in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under the relevant rules. The competent
authority as well as the appellate authority had categorically
recorded that the application and the appeal were not in the
prescribed format.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:17:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10022-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-1048/2025]
5.2. This Court further observes that when a statute contemplates
a particular procedure for seeking information, the applicant is
required to adhere to such procedure. In the present case, the
learned Single Judge, after noticing the categorical findings
recorded by the authorities, found that no interference was
warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
5.3. This Court also notes that while dismissing the writ petition,
liberty has already been granted to the appellant to file a proper
application before the competent authority in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the
appellant and the appropriate remedy has already been made
available.
5.4. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge.
6. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) stands
dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:17:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
