Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2020/2024 of NAYAN MONI HAZARIKA Vs THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND 2 ORS on 14 June 2026
GAHC010071252024 2026:GAU-AS:8559 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2020/2024 NAYAN MONI HAZARIKA SON OF SRI BIPUL HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF GANESH MANDIR PATH, NEW GUWAHATI, P.O.- NOONMATI, P.S.- NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-20, DISTRICT-
GAHC010071252024
2026:GAU-AS:8559
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2020/2024
NAYAN MONI HAZARIKA
SON OF SRI BIPUL HAZARIKA,
RESIDENT OF GANESH MANDIR PATH,
NEW GUWAHATI, P.O.- NOONMATI,
P.S.- NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-20,
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL INFORMATION
COMMISSION AND 2 ORS
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION,
BABA GANGNATH MARG,
MUNIRKA, NEW DELHI- 110067.
2:THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY-CUM-CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
(MAINTENANCE)
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
2005
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
NUMALIGARH
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785699.
3:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER-CUM-GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
NUMALIGARH
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785699
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nayan Moni Hazarika, Petitioner-in-Person For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, CGC
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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.
O R D E R
15.06.2026
Heard Mr. Nayan Moni Hazarika, the Petitioner-in-Person. Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The Petitioner-in-person has assailed the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Central Information Commission on the ground that there is a mention in the said order that the Public Information Officer (PIO), while providing the information, shall redact that information which is exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and then serve the copy of the agreement signed between VKMRF and NRL.
3. This Court has duly taken note of the information which was sought for by the Petitioner-in-Person which is duly mentioned in the body of the order dated 19.01.2024. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the information in respect to the Question Nos.1, 2 & 4 were duly provided to the Petitioner-in-Person. However, as regards the Information No. 3 which was sought for, the said document was not provided by the PIO on the ground that the said document is a non-commercial document signed with a charitable institution. It is further taken note of that vide the order dated 19.01.2024, the Chief Central Information Commissioner directed the PIO to provide the Deed of Agreement signed between VKMRF and NRL, and accordingly, it is the case of the Petitioner-in-Person that he has duly received the said agreement which is a part of the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner on 24.07.2024.
4. The Petitioner-in-Person, however, submitted that the said agreement so provided is only for the year 2021. However, the other agreements have not been provided.
5. This Court duly takes note of that the Petitioner never sought for the copy of any other agreement and he did not seek a copy of the Deed of Agreement between the management of Numaligarh Refinery and the management of Vivekananda Kendra Numaligarh Refinery Hospital specific to a particular year or years. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that there is no question of interfering with the order dated 19.01.2024.
6. This Court also takes note of the allegation of the Petitioner- in-Person that the PIO of the Numaligarh Refinery Limited is taking advantage of the observations made in the order dated 19.01.2024 that the information which are exempted from disclosure must not be disclosed to the Petitioner-in-Person and the same must be redacted under Section 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 prior to the said disclosure.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the said observations would not impact the Petitioner-in-Person in obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the PIO of the Numaligarh Refinery Limited cannot deny providing the information unless such information comes within the exempted provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Petitioner-in-Person is duly informed as to under what provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005 such disclosure is not provided.
8. With the above the instant writ petitions stand disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant