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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.