MOOT COURT PROBLEM – 3: Ravindra Kumar (Appellant) Versus PIO, KDA (Respondent)

MOOT COURT PROBLEM – 3: Ravindra Kumar (Appellant) Versus PIO, KDA (Respondent)

(Based on the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Appellate Jurisdiction)

IN THE HON’BLE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH

(Appellate Jurisdiction under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

Moot Court Case No. – 03 of 2026
Date: 20 March 2026

Ravindra Kumar ……… Appellant
Versus
Public Information Officer, Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) ……… Respondent

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ravindra Kumar, aged about 35 years, is a resident of Kanpur Nagar and a social activist working on issues related to urban housing and transparency.

On 10 August 2025, the Appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA), seeking the following information:

• Details of residential plots allotted under a government housing scheme from 2020 to 2025
• List of beneficiaries along with the criteria for selection
• Copies of internal correspondence and file noting related to allotment decisions

The Appellant alleged that there were irregularities and favouritism in the allotment process. On 5 September 2025, the Public Information Officer partially rejected the application stating that:

• Disclosure of beneficiary details would amount to an invasion of privacy
• File noting and internal correspondence are confidential in nature
• The information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 20 September 2025.

The First Appellate Authority, by order dated 15 October 2025, upheld the decision of the Public Information Officer and dismissed the appeal.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh.

Contentions

Appellant contends that:

• The information sought relates to public interest and transparency
• Allocation of public resources must be open to scrutiny
• Denial of information is arbitrary and contrary to law

Respondent (PIO) contends that:

• Disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy
• Internal records should not be disclosed
• No larger public interest justifies such disclosure

FACTS IN ISSUE

• Whether the information sought by the Appellant can be obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005?
• Whether the denial of information by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(d) is justified?
• Whether larger public interest warrants disclosure?
• Whether file noting and internal correspondence can be disclosed under the RTI Act?

RELEVANT LAWS

• Right to Information Act, 2005
• Section 6 – Application for obtaining information
• Section 8(1)(d) – Commercial confidence exemption
• Section 8(1)(j) – Personal information exemption
• Section 19 – Appeal provision
• Constitution of India
• Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression
• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

PRAYERS

• On behalf of the Appellant
• Direct the Respondent to provide all information
• Declare denial illegal and unjustified
• Impose penalty on PIO
• Pass any other appropriate order
• On behalf of the Respondent
• Dismiss the appeal
• Uphold exemptions under Section 8
• Protect confidential and personal information
• Pass any appropriate order

Problem In hindi 

मूट कोर्ट समस्या – 3

(सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 पर आधारित – अपीलीय क्षेत्राधिकार)

माननीय राज्य सूचना आयोग, उत्तर प्रदेश के समक्ष

वाद संख्या – 03/2026
दिनांक: 20 मार्च 2026

रविन्द्र कुमार – अपीलकर्ता
बनाम
लोक सूचना अधिकारी, के.डी.ए – प्रतिवादी

तथ्यों का विवरण

रविन्द्र कुमार (35 वर्ष), कानपुर नगर के निवासी एवं सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता हैं।

दिनांक 10 अगस्त 2025 को उन्होंने RTI आवेदन दायर किया, जिसमें मांगी गई सूचनाएँ:

2020–2025 तक आवंटित प्लॉटों का विवरण
लाभार्थियों की सूची व चयन मानदंड
फाइल नोटिंग व आंतरिक पत्राचार

PIO ने 5 सितम्बर 2025 को आंशिक रूप से अस्वीकार किया:

यह निजता का उल्लंघन होगा
फाइल नोटिंग गोपनीय है
धारा 8(1)(j) व 8(1)(d) लागू

प्रथम अपील (20 सितम्बर 2025) → खारिज (15 अक्टूबर 2025)

द्वितीय अपील → राज्य सूचना आयोग

विचारणीय तथ्य

• क्या सूचना RTI के अंतर्गत मिल सकती है?
• क्या धारा 8(1)(j) व 8(1)(d) उचित हैं?
• क्या जनहित प्रकटीकरण को उचित ठहराता है?
• क्या फाइल नोटिंग दी जा सकती है?

प्रासंगिक विधि

• RTI Act, 2005 – धारा 6, 8, 19
• संविधान – अनुच्छेद 19(1)(a), 21

प्रार्थनाएँ

• अपीलकर्ता: सूचना उपलब्ध कराई जाए, अस्वीकृति अवैध घोषित हो, दंड लगे
• प्रतिवादी: अपील खारिज हो, गोपनीयता सुरक्षित रहे

 

Memorial की PDF 
Moot Court Memorial (अपीलकर्ता की ओर से)
Touch here

प्रतिवादी (PIO) की ओर से प्रस्तुत मेमोरियल
Touch here 

(नोट: ये मेमोरियल केवल सैम्पल मात्र है, कोई विधिक सलाह नहीं।)