CW 1005/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1005/07 The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Anr. Versus Shri G.S. Narwani & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 31/07/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for petitioner Mr. Saugath Roy, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by State Government assailing orders dt.7th July, 2006 & so also dt.31st August, 2006 whereby appeals preferred by petitioner were rejected by authority under Right to Information Act, 2005. Respondent No.1 filed application u/s.6 of the Act, 2005 demanding certain informations to be more specific a letter dt.30th January, 1995 which was sent to the Anti-corruption Department denying prosecution sanction & notesheet dt.29th October, 1999 which contains approval of Chief Minister to drop the inquiry. However, copy of letter dt.30th January, 1995 was supplied, but as regards notesheet dt.29th October, 1999, it was denied on the premise that such notesheets cannot be made available in view Sec.8(h) of the Act, 2005. However, respondent preferred appeal which CW 1005/07 [2] was allowed and the petitioner was directed to supply notesheet – against which petitioner approached this court by filing instant petition. Only objection raised by petitioner before this court is that notesheet which has been demanded by respondent-applicant, such informations are exempted u/s.8(h) of the Act and in these circumstances, the authority has committed an error in directing petitioner to supply notesheet, of which reference has been made supra. Counsel for respondent while supporting finding recorded under order impugned, further submits that Sec.8(h) has no application in the facts of instant case since notesheet demanded by him is in relation to his own case considered at different level in the Government and it is required for his defence in the pending proceedings. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the order impugned. Sec.8 grants exemption from disclosure of information and Sec.8(h), which is relevant for CW 1005/07 [3] the present purpose, is reproduced as under: “8(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.” Respondent as referred to supra demanded notesheet dt.29th October, 1999 containing approval of Chief Minister in regard to his own case examined in the State Government and Sec.8 (h) of which petitioner has taken protection, in opinion of this court, has no application. This Court does not find any error committed by the appellate authority in passing order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1005CW07 31-7.doc