Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Gond vs U.P. State Information Commission ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:54742-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 8781 of 2025
Sandeep Gond
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P. State Information Commission Thru. Its Secy. Rti Bhawan Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vipul Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Shikhar Anand, C.S.C.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents and Sri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1.
2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-
"To issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1- Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission and letter dated 28.10.2024 issued by the Respondent No.-2- Public Information Officer, Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute, as more fully, annexed as Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively, to this Writ Petition.
To issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent No.4- Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute to furnish the information sought by the Petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005, i.e. a copy of his Vigilance Cell Report, along with all annexures thereto."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had filed an application under Right to Information Act to the Director, Department of Welfare of Backward Classes, Government of Uttar Pradesh, seeking Vigilance Cell Report pertaining to verification of his caste certificate along with all supporting documents. The petitioner relied upon communication dated 17.01.2021 issued by the Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P., wherein the Director, Department of Welfare of Backward Classes, has been directed to conduct an enquiry through the Vigilance Cell in strict compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Government Order dated 05.01.1996 and to submit a detailed point-wise report. The petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The statement of the petitioner was recorded. He had submitted all relevant documents. The Enquiry Officer had conducted a spot verification at the petitioner's native village, and therefore, the report was complete in all respect and the petitioner has a right under the judgement rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241, through a copy of the Vigilance Cell Report with all its enclosures. The Public Information Officer, instead of furnishing the information sought by the petitioner, gave a cryptic reply on 27.09.2024 saying that the relevant record including the Vigilance Cell Report has been provided in its original to the officer designated by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute, and therefore, the Department of Welfare of Backward Classes was unable to provide the information to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner's application was transferred to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (for short "SCSTRTI") under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, with a request to furnish the requisite information to the petitioner. The Public Information Officer of the SCSTRTI has informed the petitioner on 28.10.2024 that the copy of the Vigilance Cell Report has not been sent to the Government.
5. Being aggrieved by the said response, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Directorate of Welfare of Backward Classes. He had stated in his Appeal that the Vigilance Cell Report relating to him had already been submitted to the SCSTRTI and he had not been given a copy of the same. After his Appeal remained pending, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Chief Information Commissioner. The State Information Commission initiated proceedings and sought information from the SCSTRTI and the Directorate of Welfare of Backward Classes. During the course of proceedings, the SCSTRTI through its written communication submitted that twelve files have been received from the Director, Welfare of Backward Classes and a direction has been issued for a thorough examination of the said twelve files/ Vigilance Reports, and therefore, it was not possible to provide a copy of such report to the petitioner.
6. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the Vigilance Cell Report was finalized and it pertained to his own caste certificate verification, the petitioner was entitled to a copy of such Vigilance Cell Report. However, the State Information Commission granted liberty to the petitioner to file a point-wise objections to the response of Public Information Officer of SCSTRTI. In compliance of the order of the Commission, the petitioner gave a detailed objection to the Director, Directorate of Welfare of Backward Classes and clarified that his application has been transferred to SCSTRTI. The State Information Commission has not decided the petitioner's Appeal but has proceeded to pass an arbitrary and unreasoned order on the basis of information given by the Directorate to it that the records/ files pertaining to verification of caste certificate had been directed to be handed over to Research Officer, SCSTRTI on 19.09.2024 and no files relating to such cases were in the Directorate. The Commission has wrongly observed that since the information sought by the petitioner was not available with the Directorate, there was no justification to keep the matter pending any further and disposed of the Appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 and the letter dated 28.10.2024 issued by the Public Information Officer of U.P. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute, says that there is no provision for reconsideration of Vigilance Cell report by any authority. He has placed reliance upon paragraph-13 of the judgement rendered in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), where the Supreme Court has issued guidelines which need to be followed. He has specifically read out guideline no.6 which says that the Director concerned, on receipt of report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or "doubtful" or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post and after ensuring service of such show cause notice along with report, it should not wait for more than 30 days for the candidate's reply.
8. Having gone through the judgement rendered in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and having gone through the letter of the Public Information Officer of the SCSTRTI dated 04.04.2025 addressed to the Presiding Officer, State Information Commission, we find that the institute has only informed that twelve files were received by it from the Department of Welfare Backward Classes and they were asked to submit a revised report with a clear opinion taking into account the Government Orders, Regulations and other guidelines issued from time to time in this regard; it is apparent that the report with regard to the petitioner sent by the Vigilance Cell was not very clear and it had not made any recommendation, and therefore, it needed to be revisited. Since the report was not final, it could not have been given to the petitioner.
9. We find no reason to interfere in the orders impugned.
10. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) September 10, 2025 Rahul