Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026:CGHC:22292
WPC No. 3919 of 2022
WPC No. 4095 of 2022
WPC No. 4096 of 2022
WPC No. 4045 of 2022
WPC No. 4041 of 2022
WPC No. 4087 of 2022
WPC No. 4039 of 2022
WPC No. 4076 of 2022
WPC No. 3919 of 2022
Guru Sanjay Gokhale S/o Late Shri Anand Rao Gokhale, Aged About 55 Years Working As Manager, Chhattisgarh Mati Kala Doard, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi, Editor Suyash Gram Samaghar, Lig-93, Housing Bord Colony, Dhansuli, Post - Nardaaha, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4095 of 2022
Paresh Minj S/o Shri Anil Minj Aged About 54 Years Working As Manager, Chhattisgarh Hast Shilp Vikas Board, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi Editor, Suyash Gram Samachar, Lig- 93, Housing Board Colony, Dhansuli Post Nardaha Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4096 of 2022
Paresh Minj S/o Shri Anil Minj Aged About 54 Years Working As Manager, Chhattisgarh Hast Shilp Vikas Board, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandri, Raipur,, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi Editor, Suyash Gram Samachar, Lig- 93, Housing Board Colony, Dhansuli Post Nardaha Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4045 of 2022
Guru Sanjay Gokhale S/o Late Shri Anand Rao Gokhale Aged About 55 Years Working As Manager, Ghhattisgarh Mati Kala Board, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh , (Wrongly Mentioned As Hart In Impugned Order )
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector - 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi Edito Suyash Gram Samachar, Lig - 93, Housing Board Colony, Dhansuli, Post - Nardaha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4041 of 2022
Guru Sanjay Gokhale S/o Late Shri Anand Rao Gokhale Aged About 55 Years Working As Manager Chhattisgarh Mati Kala Board, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.).
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector- 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi Editor, Suyash Gram Samachar, Lig-93, Housing Board Colony, Dhansuli, Post Nardaha, Raipur (C.G.).
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4087 of 2022
Paresh Minj S/o Shri Anil Minj Aged About 54 Years Working As Manager, Chhattisgarh Hast Shilp Vikas Board, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector - 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi Editor Suyash Gram Samachar, Lig-93, Housing Board Colony, Dhansuli, Post - Nardaha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4039 of 2022
Guru Sanjay Gokhale S/o Late Shri Anand Rao Kokhale Aged About 55 Years Working As Manager, Chhattisgarh Mati Kala Board, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector- 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi Editor Suyash Gram Samachar, L I G- 93, Housing Board Colony, Dhansuli, Post- Nardaha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4076 of 2022
Paresh Minj S/o Shri Anil Minj Aged About 54 Years Working As Manager, Chhattisgarh Hast Shilp Vikas Board, Chhattisgarh Haat Parisar, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.).
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Inforamtion Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Shri Vyas Muni Dwivedi Editor, Suyash Gram Samachar, Lig-93, Housing Board Colony, Dhansuli, Post Nardaha, Raipur (C.G.).
--- Respondent(s)
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate. |
| For Respondent(s) No. 1 | : | Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate |
| For Respondent No. 2 | : | Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
12/05/2026
Order on Board
1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 3919/2022 (Guru Sanjay Gokhale vs. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission and Another) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same.
“(A) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure P/1).
(B) That any other relief which this court thinks fit in the interest of justice & equity.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner, while functioning as the Public Information Officer (PIO), had denied the information sought by respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 28.12.2020 by invoking the exemption contained under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, after obtaining necessary instructions from the competent higher authorities. It is contended that the denial of information constituted an appealable order under the Act of 2005 and, therefore, respondent No. 2 ought to have availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 before the First Appellate Authority. However, bypassing the prescribed appellate mechanism, respondent No. 2 directly approached the State Information Commission by filing a complaint under Section 18 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 1, by the impugned orders dated 28.06.2022 and 07.07.2022, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner for non-supply of the information sought, despite the petitioner having acted bona fide, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and on the basis of instructions received from the competent higher authorities. It is argued that the petitioner neither intentionally nor malafidely withheld the information and that the order denying information was itself appealable under the Act. Therefore, respondent No. 2 ought to have first exhausted the statutory remedy available under Section 19 of the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission under Section 18. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having discharged his duties in his official capacity under the Act of 2005, could not have been subjected to such penal consequences and that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 did not satisfy any of the contingencies contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.06.2022 and 07.07.2022 are stated to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and settled principles of law and are, therefore, liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission has duly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and has rightly entertained the complaint preferred by respondent No. 2. It is contended that upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission found that the information sought by respondent No. 2 had been unlawfully withheld by the petitioner and, therefore, rightly directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the requisite information. It is further submitted that the Commission, after recording its satisfaction regarding the unjustified denial of information, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- in each case strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2005. Learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are legal, proper and well reasoned and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its w
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
