Jaya Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.03.03 17:46:09 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:10193-DB NAFR WA No. 139 of 2025 Jaya Agrawal D/o Shri R.D. Agrawal Aged About 36 Years Village/Gram Panchayat- Lingiyadih, District- Bilaspur C.G. versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislative Work Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur C.G. 2 - Chief Information Commissioner And Second Appellate Authority, State Information Commission, Sector 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Dr. Neelkamal Garg, Advocate. For Respondent No.1
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shyamsuner Tekchandani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.03.2025 2 1. Heard Dr. Neelkamal Garg, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Shyamsuner Tekchandani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e., the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 28.11.2024 (Jaya Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5914 of 2024, whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / appellant herein was dismissed by learned Single Judge. 5. Facts of the case are that the respondents and their officials have wrongly demanded a certificate and BPL ration card, issued based on the 2002 survey, which is against the purpose and intent of this Act. The State Government has misused its power to amend the Act, reducing the rights under the RTI, and making arbitrary rules to indirectly protect corrupt individuals, thereby rendering the Act's objectives ineffective. The appellant/petitioner, holding an Antyodaya Ration Card meant 3 for the extremely poor, is exempt from all fees (application, documentation, and appeal) under the RTI Act. The respondents have wrongly applied the Chhattisgarh Government's letter no. 1696/G/668/2011/1-Suapr Raipur dated June 27, 2011, to all types of ration cards. Even the Hon'ble Single Bench has erred in upholding the respondents' decision. The letter explicitly states that ration cards issued under the Chief Minister's Food Assistance Scheme in 2007-08, based on urban surveys, should not be considered valid for providing free information under the RTI Act. The appellant/petitioner's Antyodaya Ration Card was not issued under this scheme or based on the 2007- 08 urban survey. 6. The appellant's Antyodaya Ration Card cannot be deemed invalid based on this circular, as it does not fall under its purview. The appellant's Antyodaya Ration Card was issued under the Chhattisgarh Food and Nutrition Security Act 2012 and the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016, and is a renewed ration card for rural areas, specifically Gram and Gram Panchayat Lingiyadih. The Chhattisgarh government has not imposed any restrictions on Antyodaya Ration Cards. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPC No.5914 of 2024, whereby, the petition filed by the writ-petitioner / appellant herein was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2024. 4 Hence, this writ appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the RTI Act, Section 6, clause 02, clearly states that individuals with ration cards below the poverty line can attach a copy of their ration card to claim exemption from fees. The appellant/petitioner is entitled to this exemption. Further the appellant/petitioner's Antyodaya Ration Card, being below the BPL category, makes her eligible for exemption from all fees by attaching a copy of her ration card. He further submits that learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the appellant/petitioner's Antyodaya Ration Card, which falls below the BPL category, as proof of being below the poverty line. He also submits that learned Single Judge has made an assumption contrary to the facts and documents presented, which is not sustainable and needs to be changed. Learned Single Judge has also erred in interpreting the Chhattisgarh government's letter dated 27.06.2011. The appellant's Antyodaya Ration Card was not issued under the Chief Minister's Food Assistance Scheme or based on the 2007-08 urban survey, so it does not fall under this circular. Hence, the appellant's Antyodaya Ration Card cannot be deemed invalid. The Chhattisgarh Government has never imposed any restrictions on Antyodaya Ration Cards. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by 5 learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed
Decision
the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that in the instant case, the appellant has not filed any document, certificate, ration card (in the category of Below Poverty Line) to demonstrate the fact that she belongs to person of class of below poverty line, rather she has filed ration card to have different category namely "अंत्योदय अन्य योजना / वि(cid:12)शेष कमजोर समूह". Since the petitioner could not file any document to demonstrate her contention that she belongs to a person of "Below Poverty Line", learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ 6 petition as also in writ appeal and also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Judge Chief Justice Bablu