SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15949

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


2026:CGHC:22502


NAFR


WPC No. 3944 of 2021


Judgment Reserved On :02.04.2026.

Judgment Delivered On : 13.05.2026.


Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena S/o Amal Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village

Ghanaghat, Thana And Tahsil Lormi , District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner.

versus

1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Chief Information

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

492002 Chhattisgarh.

2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat , Lormi , District Mungeli

Chhattisgarh.

3 - Shri Nitin Singhvi R/o Mig 59, Sec 01, Shankar Nagar Raipur , District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents.


For Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Jha appears on behalf of Shri Anand

Shukla, Advocates.

For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate.

For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad


C A V Order

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition being aggrieved by the order dated

29.05.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information

Commission, Raipur in four complaint cases instituted against him viz

Complaint Case Nos.C/287/2019, C/288/2019, C/289/2019, C/290/2019.

2. By the impugned order dated 29.05.2021, a fine of Rs.25,000/- in respect

of each complaint cases has been imposed upon on the petitioner and it

has been recommended to take disciplinary action against him on account

of non furnishing of information by him within time limit as sought under

Right to Information Act, 2005 by Respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside

impugned order dated 29.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the

Respondent No. 01 the State Information Commission,in the

interest of justice.

10.2) That, Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the

petitioner.

10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may

think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

may also kindly be granted.”

4. Case as projected by the petitioner is that he was Secretary of Gram

Panchayat, Dongarigardh, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh and under Right to

Information Act, 200511 The RTI Act, petitioner was also the Public Information Officer of

the said office. During his tenure as a Secretary of the said Gram

Panchayat, Respondent No.3 filed an application seeking information under

the RTI Act in respect of grant of Forest Rights lease within the jurisdiction

of the panchayat and for that, he filed four different RTI applications dated

21.08.2018. Reliefs prayed for by Respondent No.3 in those four RTI

applications are as under:-

First Application :- A copy of the notice published by the

Panchayat calling for the applications for objections relating to

grant of forest rights leases under the Scheduled Tribes and Other

Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,

2006.

Second Application :- A copy of the documents relating to

constitution of Forest Rights Committee and documents relating to

the selection of the President and the Secretary of the said

committee under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional

Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

Third Application :- A copy of list of objections sent to the Sub

District Level Committee relating to grant of forest rights under the

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers

(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

Fourth Application :- A copy of all the Letters received by the

Panchayat from the Collector, Tehsildar, Forest Department, ST &

SC Department relating to/under the Scheduled Tribes and Other

Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,

2006.

5. It is further pleaded that the aforesaid four applications were never received

by the petitioner and there is no record of the same in office. Even also on

going through the reliefs of the applications, it does not appear that the

information sought by Respondent No.3 is meant for larger public interest

which resulted in disproportionate diversion of the resources of the

petitioner thereby caused obstruction to his day to day working. After a

lapse of about 6 months, on 22.02.2019, four different complaints were filed

under Section 18 (1) (c) in respect of each RTI application viz Complaint

Case Nos.C/287/2019, C/288/2019, C/289/2019, C/290/2019 directly

before the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act i.e. State

Information Commission-Respondent No.1 alleging that the Public

Information Officer has not provided requisite information as sought by the

Respondent No.3 and as such, necessary order in accordance with law is

required to be passed. As such, Respondent No.3 directly approached the

second appellate authority without availing himself of the alternative

remedy available to him to file first appeal before the first appellate

authority, however, the second appellate authority i.e. State Information

Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top