Gujarat HC Quashes RTI Appeal Dismissal, Bars Petitioner From Bringing Others During Record Inspection
The Gujarat High Court set aside an appellate order that rejected a second RTI appeal over alleged misbehaviour at a gram panchayat office, directing solo inspection of records with a one-month deadline for furnishing information.
Justice Nirzar S. Desai, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, on 31 July 2026 quashed an order by which a second appeal under the Right to Information Act had been dismissed against the petitioner, Vala Jodhubhai Golanbhai, a 74-year-old resident of Nagadla. The dismissal had rested on allegations that the petitioner and several persons accompanying him misbehaved with a lady Talati-cum-Mantri at Nagdala Gram Panchayat. The court accepted an affidavit-cum-undertaking from the petitioner pledging courteous conduct and directed the respondents to permit solo inspection and provide the information sought within one month. The order also raises a pointed concern about whether the petitioner was seeking information for himself or acting as a front for a third party.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner had filed a second appeal, registered as Appeal No. A/6465 of 2025, seeking information from the RTI Officer along with Form K. By an order dated 08.04.2026, respondent No. 3 — the appellate authority — dismissed that appeal.
The dismissal order recorded that the petitioner had been called upon to appear personally and specify the exact information he sought from what were described as bulky records. When the petitioner visited Nagdala Gram Panchayat for the purpose of inspection, he arrived accompanied by six to seven persons and insisted that the Talati-cum-Mantri show the records to all of them. The Talati-cum-Mantri, a woman, refused. It was then alleged that the petitioner and his companions misbehaved with her. When she began recording the incident on her mobile phone and informed them that police would be called, the group left the office after allegedly threatening her. On the basis of this conduct, the second appeal was dismissed.
Before the High Court, the petitioner sought quashing of the 08.04.2026 order and a direction to the respondents to furnish the information along with Form K, as set out in Annexures B and C to the petition. The petitioner was represented by Ms. Simran Pahwa of Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates. Respondent No. 3 was represented by Mr. Shivang Shah.
The Court's Concern: Information for Whom?
On the date of hearing, Ms. Pahwa tendered an affidavit-cum-undertaking sworn by the petitioner on 29 July 2026. The affidavit contained several commitments: that the petitioner would conduct himself in a cordial and courteous manner, that he would not carry electronic devices including mobile phones, cameras, or recording equipment during the visit, that he would not cause any disturbance or obstruction to the RTI Officer or the office, and that he would be accompanied by a person conversant with the contents and language of the information provided.
The undertaking to bring one accompanying person drew a sharp response. Mr. Shivang Shah vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that permitting any companion — even framed as a language assistant — would be contrary to the RTI framework.
Justice Desai accepted this concern in substance. The court observed that if the petitioner himself is not conversant with the language or the contents of the information sought, permitting another person to accompany him during inspection would, in effect, amount to providing the information to a third party. The court recorded a prima facie impression that “the petitioner is merely acting as a pawn for such third party, which is not the object or purpose of the Right to Information Act.”
This finding did not cause the court to dismiss the petition. Instead, the court took the view that the petitioner had, through the affidavit-cum-undertaking, provided sufficient assurance. It further noted that the petitioner had been denied inspection not for a deficiency in his RTI application but on account of his alleged misbehaviour with the concerned officer. That factual basis was distinct from a deficiency in the application itself.
Conditions Imposed on Inspection
The court quashed the 08.04.2026 order but attached express conditions to the relief granted. The petitioner will be permitted to inspect the records only if he personally undertakes the inspection without any accompanying person. The direction on this point is unambiguous: no other person shall be allowed to accompany the petitioner inside the office of the concerned respondent.
The petitioner's own undertaking not to carry electronic devices and to behave in a cordial manner also forms part of the framework within which the inspection must proceed.
Upon completion of the inspection, the respondent is directed to provide photocopies of such documents as the petitioner specifically seeks from the records inspected, upon payment of the prescribed charges. The undertaking that the petitioner would receive information “with utmost integrity and good faith” was noted as part of the record.
Outcome
The impugned order dated 08.04.2026, passed by respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. A/6465 of 2025, is quashed and set aside. The concerned respondent is directed to permit Vala Jodhubhai Golanbhai to inspect the relevant records and thereafter furnish the information sought, including Form K, within one month from 31 July 2026. Only the petitioner shall be permitted to enter the office for the inspection; no accompanying person is allowed. Photocopies of specifically sought documents shall be provided on payment of prescribed charges. The petition stands disposed of.