PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      C/SCA/6471/2018                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6471 of 2018


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
          Approved for Reporting           Yes      No
                                                    ✔
==========================================
                       PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL
                                Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
PARTH BRAHMBHATT FOR VISHAL S AWTANI(7913) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 06/04/2026

                            ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       RULE. Learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf
of the respective respondents.


2.       With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the
present petition is taken up for =nal hearing.


3.       Present petition is =led by the petitioner under Article 226 of

                                 Page 1 of 10
      C/SCA/6471/2018                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereafter be referred to as “the RTI Act”)
seeking following reliefs:-

           “A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass a writ of
               mandamus or pass any writ, order or direction in the
               nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4
               Public Information O&cer of the O&ce of Mamlatdar
               (Daskroi) to supply the information as sought for vide
               the application dated 15.06.2016 and further be
               pleased to direct Respondent No.4 Public Information
               O&ce of the O&ce of Mamlatdar (Daskroi) to comply
               with the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by
               Respondent No.3 herein as well as order dated
               29.11.2016 passed Respondent No.2 herein.

           B.    YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to pass a
                 writ of mandamus or pass any writ, order or direction
                 in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent
                 No.2 State Information Commissioner to initiate
                 enquiry/proceedings under Section 20 of the Act
                 against the Respondent No.4 Public Information O&ce
                 of the O&ce of Mamlatdar (Daskroi);

           C.    During the pendency, admission and 8nal disposal the
                 present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
                 direct the Respondent No.2 to decide the application
                 dated 02.02.2018;

           D.    Any other and further relief that may deem 8t by this
                 Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;



4.       Brief facts of the present petition are in nutshell as under:-


4.1      The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 6 of
the RTI Act seeking information pursuant to land bearing 79 (O1d
Survey/Block Survey No. No.15) admeasuring about 30932 square
meters situated at District - Sub District Ahmedabad (Daskroi) from
respondent No. 4 - Public Information OFcer [ Mamlatdar (Daskroi) ]


                                     Page 2 of 10
      C/SCA/6471/2018                           JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




but the same has not been provided within statutory period of thirty
days. That the petitioner had preferred First Appeal under the
provisions of the RTI Act before respondent No.3 – First Appellate
Authority and Prant OFcer (Daskroi), which came to be allowed and
directed respondent No.4 to supply information within ten days,
however, the respondent No.4 has not complied with the order and
not supplied the information as directed by respondent No.3.
Thereafter, the petitioner had sent communication to respondent No.3
with non-compliance of the order passed by respondent No.4, but the
communication did not yield any eJective result.


4.2      The petitioner had preferred second appeal before respondent
No.2 under the RTI Act, which came to be allowed and again directed
respondent No.4 to supply the information within one month but still
respondent No.4 has not supplied the information even after said two
orders. That the petitioner approached respondent No.2 – State
Information Commissioner, Gujarat informing about non-compliance of
the order passed by respondent No.2 despite this, the petitioner
approached several authorities but he is suJering from non-
performance of statutory duty by the concerned public authorities and
hence, this petition.


5.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 3 and learned counsel
for respondent No.2. Perused the material placed on record.


6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts
which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that
though there was speci=c direction given by the respondent No.3 to
furnish all necessary information / documents which were sought for

                                 Page 3 of 10
     C/SCA/6471/2018                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




by way of application =led under the RTI Act, which was not complied
with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had preferred second appeal before respondent No.2 and
respondent No.2 directed respondent No.4 to furnish all details
immediately as reason assigned by the appellate authority. It is
submitted that when he visited respondent No.2, the petitioner
received a letter where it has been stated that the information which
was sought for was not available in the oFce of the concerned Talati
and that record was not found and that the revenue entry whose
record has been sought by the petitioner was =nalized in the year
2002. It is submitted that the copy of the order was not supplied on
the ground that the said entry was reviewed by the Deputy Collector
in the year 2016 and therefore said record was not available in the
oFce of the concerned Talati, however, the appellate authority has
denied the said contention raised by the respondent – authorities and
directed them to furnish information, however, the same was not
supplied and therefore, the petitioner =led this petition. It is submitted
on behalf of the petitioner that the petition deserves to be allowed.


7.      Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1
and 3 has referred to the aFdavit-in-reply =led by respondent No.1.
The relevant paragraphs of the aFdavit-in-reply reads as under:-

      “From the plain reading of the present petition, it appears that
      the petitioner has prayed before this Hon'ble Court to direct
      the respondent no. 4, Public Information O&cer of the O&ce
      of Mamlatdar (Daskroi) to supply the information, as sought
      for vide application dated 15.06.2016 and further be pleased
      to direct the respondent no. 4, Public Information O&cer to
      comply with the order dated 21.09.2016, passed by
      respondent no. 3 herein as well as order dated 29.11.2017,
      passed by respondent no. 2 herein. Further be pleased to
      direct the respondent no. 2, State Information Commissioner
      to initiate inquiry/proceedings 2 under section 20 of the act


                                  Page 4 of 10
C/SCA/6471/2018                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




 against the respondent no. 4, Public Information O&cer of the
 O&ce of Mamlatdar (Daskroi).

 The brief facts of the present petition are as follows: the
 present petitioner has 8led an application under RTI Act on
 15.06.2016, under section 6, before the respondent no. 4, i.e,
 Public Information O&cer of the O&ce of Mamlatdar (Daskroi).
 The respondent no. 4 has carried out the inspection regarding
 the information sought by the present petitioner but the
 information sought is not able to trace out from the records
 available with the O&ce of the respondent no. 4. The present
 petitioner has asked for the following information. (1) The
 copy of the entry no. 1569 dated 08.01.2016 pertaining to the
 survey no. 97 (old survey no. 15) of the land situated at
 Village Huka, Taluka Daskroi. (2) The certi8ed copy of the
 order dated 14.06.2002, passed by the Learned Mamlatdar,
 Daskroi and the order dated 28.10.2001, passed by the
 Deputy Collector, Daskroi (Prant O&cer).

 Being aggrieved by non ful8llment of information, the present
 petitioner had 8led an First Appeal before the respondent no.
 3, First Appellate Authority and Prant O&cer, Daskroi on
 12.08.2016 and the respondent no. 3 was pleased to allow the
 appeal made by the present petitioner and directed the
 respondent no. 4 vide order dated 21.09.2016 to give the
 information sought within 10 days of the order. Being
 aggrieved and dissatis8ed with the order passed by the
 respondent no. 3, the petitioner had 8led the Second Appeal
 before the respondent no. 2, State Information Commissioner,
 Gujarat and the respondent no. 2 had allowed the Second
 Appeal dated 18.11.2016, and directed the respondent no. 4
 vide order dated 29-11-2017 to supply the information sought
 by the petitioner vide application dated 15.06.2016, within
 one month and submit a report before the respondent no. 2.

 I say and submit that the information which is sought by the
 petitioner is not available in the records of the O&ce of
 Mamlatdar, Daskroi. After the bona8de eCorts, made by the
 respondent no 4, the information sought by the present
 petitioner is not traceable. The respondent no. 4 has carried
 out the search operation several times for the information
 sought by the petitioner. For that purpose, the petitioner has
 carried out the search with the team of 2 employees on
 13.10.2017. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated
 21.10.2017 has asked the present petitioner to remain
 present on 26.10.2017 for search of documents, which the
 petitioner has sought for vide application dated 15.06.2016.


                             Page 5 of 10
      C/SCA/6471/2018                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




       Despite the fact that the present on 26.10.2017 for search of
       documents, which the petitioner has sought for vide
       application dated 15.06.2016. Despite that the respondent no.
       4 has called the petitioner, the petitioner was not present on
       the date of search before the authorities and on 30.10.2017,
       the petitioner was informed that the records were not
       available, pertaining to the information, sought by him. The
       respondent no. 4 again constituted a committee of 2 members
       to 8nd out from the records available with the O&ce of
       Mamlatdar, Daskroi, but this time also, the information sought
       by the present petitioner was not traceable.

       I say and submit that being aggrieved with the order passed
       by the respondent no. 2 and 3 vide order dated 21.09.2016
       and 29.11.2016 respectively. The petitioner has 8led the
       present petition. In the meanwhile, the respondent no. 4 has
       carried out once again the search for the documents, sought
       by the petitioner on 15.09.2023, but the information or the
       documents are not available with the O&ce of the Mamlatdar,
       Daskroi.

       It is pertinent to note that the entry no. 1569 dated
       08.01.2016 for the survey no. 97 (old survey no. 15) of the
       land situated at Village Huka, TalukaDaskroi was cancelled by
       the Circle O&cer - vide entry no. 1691 on 08.03.2018. Despite
       all the bona 8de eCorts, made by the answering respondent,
       the information, which is sought by the petitioner is not
       available with the records and could not be traced out.



7.1      Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that considering
the contents of the reply, the petition being meritless deserves to be
dismissed.


8.       It is the contention on the part of the petitioner that he has =led
this petition challenging inaction on the part of the respondent –
authorities. That the petitioner had =led application under RTI Act
before respondent No.4 seeking relevant documents, but the same
was not provided to him, however, he has =led =rst appeal being
RTI/Appeal/Case No.13/2016 before respondent No.3. It is also the



                                   Page 6 of 10
     C/SCA/6471/2018                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




contention of the petitioner that the said appeal came to be allowed
and directed respondent No.4 to furnish the relevant information to
the petitioner, despite this order, the same has not done and,
therefore, the petitioner has =led second appeal before respondent
No.2, which was also allowed on 29.11.2017. The relevant paragraphs
of the order passed by respondent No.2 reads as under:-

          “(4) The Ld. advocate for the appellant submits during the
          hearing that he had visited the o&ce of the Public
          Information O&cer on 26/10/2017. The appellant had
          received the letter dated 30/10/2017 from the Public
          Information O&cer. The Public Information O&cer had
          informed the appellant in the said letter that all the eCorts
          had been made to 8nd the information which had been
          sought by the appellant, but the record could not be found.
          The Ld. advocate for the appellant submits that the revenue
          entry whose record has been sought by him was 8nalized in
          the year 2002. He further states that the said entry was
          reviewed by the Prant O&cer in the year 2016. Thus, he
          states that it is an unacceptable fact that the record of the
          entry, which was reviewed by the Prant O&cer in the year
          2016, cannot be found. The said submission of the
          appellant appears to be true. Papers regarding an entry are
          the documents to be preserved permanently as per the
          rules of the Revenue Department. Therefore, the said
          papers are required to be searched and provided to the
          appellant.

          (5) Due to his duty in the Gujarat Legislative Assembly
          elections, the Public Information O&cer has not remained
          present. The submission made the ld. advocate for the
          appellant and the papers of the case have been considered.
          The record sought by the appellant is required to be
          preserved permanently. Therefore, the Public Information
          O&cer shall furnish the information sought by the appellant
          within one month from the date of receiving this order after
          searching the same, and the report thereof shall be
          submitted to the Commission by 15/01/2018.”


9.      It appears that along with the aFdavit-in-reply, the respondent
– authority has submitted certain documents and even the petitioner


                                    Page 7 of 10
      C/SCA/6471/2018                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




was intimated by letter dated 21.10.2017 to the eJect that on
26.10.2017, he may personally remain present in the oFce and in his
presence, the documents will be searched, however, he has refused
to remain present in the oFce of the Executive Magistrate, Daskroi.
The oFce of the Executive Magistrate has prepared the rojkam for
carrying out the search of the documents as asked by the petitioner,
but the same was not found and tried to comply with the order and
there is no any denial on the part of the respondent – concerned
authority. The respondents have also referred and relied upon the
order dated 16.06.2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil
Application No. 7188 of 2021 and urged that the petition be dismissed
as the respondents have tried to comply with the order but
unfortunately the record was not found in the oFce of the Executive
Magistrate, Daskroi and they have also prepared the panch rojkam
and intimated to the petitioner to remain present, but he has not
remained present at the time of searching the documents.


10.      This Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice A. S. Supehia] in Special
Civil Application No. 7188 of 2021 has held and observed in paras 7, 8
and 9 as under:-

           “7. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order
           dated 07.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 has been
           said to have been complied with, in wake of the option
           given to the respondent No.5 either to supply the
           information or send necessary details of the search or
           eCorts made in 8nding such record. The directions issued in
           the said order do not in any way imply that information or
           record is required to be given. The direction, as stated
           hereinabove, are in two parts, either to give the record
           “OR” to supply the details of the eCorts made by the
           respondent No.5 in tracing out the record to the petitioners.
           Accordingly, Panch Rojkam dated 10.12.2021 prepared by
           the respondent No.5 reveals that despite their eCorts, they
           are unable to 8nd the record. It is not the case of the


                                     Page 8 of 10
      C/SCA/6471/2018                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




           petitioners that   Rojkam    is   falsely   prepared    and    is
           concocted.

           8. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance
           on sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the RTI Act, which reads
           as under:

           (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State
           Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of
           deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the
           Central Public Information O&cer or the State Public
           Information O&cer, as the case may be, has, without any
           reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an
           application for information or has not furnished information
           within the time speci8ed under sub-section (1) of section 7
           or mala8dely denied the request for information or
           knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
           information or destroyed information which was the subject
           of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
           information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action
           against the Central Public Information O&cer or the State
           Public Information O&cer, as the case may be, under the
           service rules applicable to him.

           9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the provision of
           Section 20(2) of the RTI Act will not apply in the present
           case as it is not the case of the petitioners that any
           incorrect or misleading information has been provided to
           them or the information has been destroyed mala 8dely. If
           the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the
           respondent authority in non-preservation of the record or
           destruction of the record in illegal manner, they may
           approach the concerned authority. There is no 8nding of
           any of the authority that such information has been
           destroyed with mala 8de intent. While exercising
           discretionary power vested under Article 226 of the
           Constitution of India, this Court cannot delve in the question
           of fact with regard to destruction or non-preservation of the
           record of the deceased petitioner.”


11.      In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Special Civil Application No. 7188 of 2021, this Court is of the
opinion that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.


                                     Page 9 of 10
       C/SCA/6471/2018                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




 12.        In light of the aforesaid foregoing reasons and observation, the
 petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order
 as to costs. It is open for the petitioner to take appropriate recourse to
 challenge the said entry by way of preferring proceedings before the
 appropriate forum. It is to be noted that this order shall not come in
 the way of the petitioner.

                                                                      (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/04/2026 17:13:27




                                                         Page 10 of 10