##PAGE1##

YOGESH Digitally signed by

YOGESH TIWARI

TIWARI Date: 2026.04.21

17:47:56 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:18026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 3961 of 2021

Sudhir Kumar Kale S/o Shri P.C. Kale Aged About 62 Years Presently

Working As Under Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil- Supplies And

Consumer, Protection, State Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur

(C.G.) District- Raipur (C.G.) Permament R/o - Mig- 12, Megh Malhar

Complex, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.) Police Station-

Aamaa Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

--- Petitioner

versus

1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through- Secretary,

Sector- 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Secretary General Administration Department, State Of C.G.,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) District- Raipur

(C.G.)

3 - First Appellate Authority Additional Secretary General Administration

Department, State Of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava

Raipur (C.G.) District- Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Public Information Officer General Administration Department, State

Of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Bhavin Jain B-243, Nsc Colony, Opposite Saraj Nursing Home, New

Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondents

2

WPC No. 3969 of 2021

Sudhir Kumar Kale S/o Shri P.C. Kale Aged About 62 Years Presently

Working As - Under Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil - Supplies

And Consumer, Protection, State Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nava

Raipur (Chhattisgarh) District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Permanent R/o -

Mig - 12, Megh Malhar Complex, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur

(Chhattisgarh) Police Station - Aamaa Naka, Raipur (Chhattisgarh),

Tehsil And District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

---Petitioner

versus

1 - Chhattisgarh State - Information Commission Through - Secretary,

Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

2 - Secretary General Administration Department, State Of C.G.,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District -

Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3 - First Appellate Authority Additional Secretary, General Administration

Department, State Of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava

Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4 - Public Information Officer General Administration Department, State

Of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

5 - Bhavin Jain B- 243, Nsc Colony, Opposite Saroj Nursing Home,

New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Tehsil And District - Raipur

(Chhattisgarh)

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani,

Advocate

For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Akanksha Verma, P. L.

to 4

For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate on behalf

3

of Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

21.04.2026

1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common,

they have been clubbed together, heard analogously, and are

being disposed of by this common order.

2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner being the same person,

has challenged the orders dated 25/06/2021 passed by the

Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Complaint

Case Nos. C/1601/2017/Raipur and C/1600/2017/Raipur,

whereby a penalty of ₹25,000/- in each case has been imposed

under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for

short, ‘the Act’). The impugned orders arise out of RTI

applications dated 31/10/2017 filed by respondent No. 05 seeking

information relating to the appointment of the State Information

Commissioner, which was denied by the petitioner, then serving

as Public Information Officer, on the ground of exemption under

Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the Act, relying upon the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra

Deshpande vs. CIC passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.27734/2012

3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite filing