Patna High Court

Ram Shankar JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The Court held that denial of information under the RTI Act must be remedied by filing an appeal before the Central or State Public Information Officer, not by a writ petition.

Summary

Ram Shankar Jha filed a writ petition seeking documents related to his PDS licence after his RTI application was denied by the authority, which claimed the documents were unavailable. The petitioner argued that the authority should furnish the documents, while the State contended that the proper remedy is an appeal to the Central or State Public Information Officer under the RTI Act. The Court examined whether a writ petition could substitute for the statutory appeal mechanism. It concluded that the petitioner must pursue the appeal provided under the RTI Act and granted him liberty to do so within four weeks. The Court also directed the authority to dispose of any such appeal within twelve weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition is an appropriate remedy for denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
Whether the Court can direct the authority to furnish documents when the RTI request has been denied

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

Right to Information
PDS licence
Writ petition
Public Information Officer
Appeal
Administrative law

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9607 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Ram Shankar Jha Son of Rajendra Jha, Resident of village- Kishanpur
                 Tabhka, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
                  Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
           2.    The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District - Samastipur.
           3.    The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rosra, District - Samastipur.
                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s     :     Mr. SD Yadav, Addl. Advocate General (09)
                                          :     Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG9
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   28-01-2026                 The only prayer sought for in the present writ petition

                   by the petitioner is seeking of the documents pertaining to his

                   PDS license.

                               2.       Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submits that though the petitioner has made an

                   application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for

                   providing the necessary documents, the authority till date has

                   not provided the same and simply replied that the same are not

                   available. Learned counsel, therefore, prays this Hon’ble Court

                   to direct the authority to furnish the necessary documents as per

                   the request made under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

                               3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-

                   State submits that in case the petitioner request for furnishing
          Patna High Court CWJC No.9607 of 2025(5) dt.28-01-2026
                                                      2/2




                    the necessary documents has been denied by the primary

                    authority, the petitioner is having an effective remedy of filing

                    an appeal before the Central Public Information Officer or the

                    State Public Information Officer. Learned counsel submits that

                    the present writ petition is misconceived.

                                4. Having regard to the above made submissions, the

                    present writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the

                    petitioner to prefer an appeal against the denial of the necessary

                    documents by the Public Information Officer. If the petitioner is

                    so aggrieved, he is free to file appeal before the Central Public

                    Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer as

                    the case may be within a period of four weeks from today. On

                    such application/ appeal being filed, the same shall be

                    entertained and the necessary orders passed on merits. The

                    authority shall endeavor to dispose of the appeal filed by the

                    petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period

                    of twelve weeks from the date of filing of application/ appeal.

                                5. With the above direction, the present writ petition

                    stands disposed of.


                                            (A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…