Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4998/2026 of SRI KHANIN KALITA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS on 13 September 2026
GAHC010140322026 2026:GAU-AS:13605 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4998/2026 SRI KHANIN KALITA SON OF LATE ASHOK KALITA, RESIDENT OF RANGIA TINIALI, WARD NO. 07, DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM), PIN - 781354 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 5
GAHC010140322026
2026:GAU-AS:13605
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4998/2026
SRI KHANIN KALITA
SON OF LATE ASHOK KALITA, RESIDENT OF RANGIA TINIALI, WARD NO.
07, DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM), PIN - 781354
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY (N.F. RAILWAY)
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 781011
ASSAM.
3:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (C)
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
RANGIYA DIVISION
RANGIYA
DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM).
4:SRI SANJIB GHOSH
SR. DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER CUM PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
RANGIYA
DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM)- 781365
5:THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (FIRST APPELLATE
AUTHORITY)
NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY/RANGIYA
P.O. RANGIYA
DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM) -781365.
6:THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC BHAWAN
BABA GANGNATH MARG
MUNIRKA
NEW DELHI -110067
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G K DEKA, MR H KALITA,B BASUMATARY
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. H. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 1, 2, 3 & 5.
2. From the facts projected in this writ petition, it is noticed that the petitioner filed seven nos. of applications under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [‘the RTI Act’, for short] seeking certain information from the Central Public Information Officer [CPIO]. It is stated that against two of the applications, the CPIO had provided information to the petitioner on 13.03.2025. However, the CPIO did not provide any information against the remaining five applications.
2.1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner stated to have approached the 1st Appellate Authority, that is, the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, NF Railway, Rangia by filing an application on 29.04.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reminder before the 1st Appellate Authority on 30.07.2025.
2.2. Having received no response from the 1st Appellate Authority, the petitioner approached the Assam Information Commission on 28.11.2025. The Assam Information
Commission returned the petitioner’s application stating inter-alia that the concerned public authority involved with the applications would be the NF Railway and the NF Railway did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Assam Information Commission.
2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Central Information Commission by submitting a Complaint on 19.12.2025. In response, the Central Information Commission [CIC] informed the petitioner on 29.12.2025. By the Communication dated 29.12.2025, the CIC after scrutiny of the complaint, found the following deficiencies, firstly, the 2nd Appeal/Complaint was related to more than one RTI application; and secondly, separate appeal/complaint relating to each RTI application was required to be re-submitted.
2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint dated 11.03.2026 before the CIC seeking intervention in the matter.
3. As the petitioner did not file separate appeals before the 1st Appellate Authority and the 2nd Appellate Authority, empowered under Section 19[1] and Section 19[3] respectively of the RTI Act, to decide appeals, the petitioner’s grievances as regards non-receipt of information against his seven nos. of applications have not been considered. As the petitioner did not submit separate appeals under Section 19[1] of the RTI Act at first, before the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter, before the 2nd Appellate Authority as per Section 19[3] of the RTI Act, as the petitioner has not invoked the appellate remedy of appeals as per the procedure prescribed by the RTI Act, this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the Central Information Commission to hear and decide the Complaint dated 11.03.2026 is not entertained.
4. It is, however, open to the petitioner to file separate appeals under Section 19[1] of the RTI before the 1st Appellate Authority and it is observed that in the event such separate appeals are filed by the petitioner before the 1st Appellate Authority, the 1st Appellate Authority shall consider the applications as per the provisions of law. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by any order[s] passed by the 1st Appellate Authority, it is open for the petitioner to prefer second appeal[s].
JUDGE Comparing Assistant