RTI locus and Section 8(1)(h) exemption narrowly applied: PIO cannot challenge appellate order, and disclosure needs actual impediment.

A Public Information Officer, acting in his official capacity, lacks locus to maintain a writ petition challenging an appellate order under the Right to Information Act; the right to question such directions belongs to the public authority or another genuinely aggrieved person. Section 8(1)(h) exempts disclosure only where release of information would actually impede investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Mere pendency of proceedings before a tribunal is insufficient, and in the absence of material showing such prejudice, refusal to disclose cannot be sustained. On both maintainability and merits, the challenge to the appellate order failed and disclosure was not denied on a valid statutory basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Public Information Officer is competent to maintain a writ petition challenging an appellate order passed under the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) Whether the requested information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (i): Whether a Public Information Officer is competent to maintain a writ petition challenging an appellate order passed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: Under the scheme of the Act, the Public Information Officer decides requests for information in a quasi-judicial capacity and his orders are subject to appeal. Once an appellate authority reverses or modifies such an order, the Public Information Officer cannot treat himself as an aggrieved party. The right to challenge such directions lies with the public authority or another person genuinely aggrieved, not with the Public Information Officer acting in his official capacity.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the Public Information Officer.

Issue (ii): Whether the requested information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The exemption under Section 8(1)(h) applies only where disclosure would impede investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. Mere pendency of proceedings before a tribunal does not by itself attract the exemption. Since no material was shown to establish that disclosure would impede any investigation, apprehension, or prosecution, the refusal to furnish information could not be justified on that ground.

Conclusion: The requested information did not fall within Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate order failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the refusal to disclose the information was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A Public Information Officer lacks locus standi to challenge an appellate order passed under the Right to Information Act in his official capacity, and Section 8(1)(h) applies only when disclosure would actually impede investigation, apprehension, or prosecution.

---