Bombay High Court

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH THOMBREversusPUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CIDCO AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The High Court upheld the State Information Commission’s order rejecting the RTI appeal, finding no ground for interference.

Summary

The petitioner, Prakash Pandharinath Thombre, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 16‑04‑2018 of the State Information Commission, which had rejected his second appeal for information on the grounds that the requested data pertained to the property of his real brother and was therefore personal. The petition argued that the information should be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The High Court examined whether the Commission correctly applied the exemption provisions concerning personal information. Relying on the Commission’s interpretation of the RTI Act, the Court found no error in the order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the Commission’s decision intact.

Issues considered

What is the correct interpretation of the exemption for personal information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the context of property details of a relative?
Whether the State Information Commission erred in rejecting the petitioner's RTI appeal on the basis that the information sought related to his brother's property

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

Right to Information
personal information exemption
property details
State Information Commission
Article 227
writ petition
information disclosure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:498
                                                1 of 2                  1021-WP.795.2020




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               1021 WRIT PETITION NO. 795 OF 2020

                               PRAKASH PANDHARINATH THOMBRE
                                              VERSUS
                       PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CIDCO AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
               Mr. S. M. Gunjkar h/f. Mr. Someshwar M. Gunjal, Advocate for the
               Petitioner.
               Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
               Adv. Snehal P. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                                  ...

                                         CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE     :      8th JANUARY, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.


               2.        By the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated

               16.04.2018 passed by the State Information Commission in Second

               Appeal No. 464 of 2018, whereby the appeal filed by the Petitioner

               came to be rejected on the ground that the information sought by the

               Petitioner related to the property of an individual.


               3.        The State Information Commission, upon considering the

               provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has held that the

               information sought pertained to the property of the Petitioner’s real

               brother and amounted to personal information.


               4.        As all the authorities have concurrently held against the
                                           2 of 2                1021-WP.795.2020




          Petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated

          16.04.2018 passed by the State Information Commission in Second

          Appeal No. 464 of 2018 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of

          the Constitution of India.


          5.        Hence, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.



                                             (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…