Nashimuddin v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had 3 submitted complaints dated 30.08.2025 and 10.09.2025 before the competent authorities seeking appropriate action, including registration of FIR, in respect of a serious incident involving alleged child marriage and coercion. Despite disclosing cognizable offences and repeated representations, no effective action was taken by the authorities. Consequently, the petitioner invoked the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011 (in short ‘Act, 2011’) by submitting an application dated 12.09.2025 before the Designated Officer (respondent No. 5), who was statutorily bound to provide the requested service/information within 30 days. 3 It is further submitted that the Designated Officer failed to discharge his statutory duty within the prescribed time limit, compelling the petitioner to approach the Competent Officer (respondent No. 6) by filing a complaint dated 25.10.2025 seeking action against such default. However, even the Competent Officer failed to decide the complaint within the stipulated period as mandated under the Act, 2011. Left with no alternative, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before respondent No. 2 on

01.12.2025, specifically highlighting the inaction and default on the part of respondents No. 5 and 6. 4 Learned counsel submits that during the appellate proceedings, respondent No. 5 (Designated Officer) categorically admitted that 4 the service/information sought by the petitioner was not provided within the statutory period. Despite such clear admission and the mandatory provisions under the Act, 2011 requiring imposition of penalty and issuance of direction for providing service, the appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. No penalty was imposed upon respondent No. 5, nor was any direction issued for furnishing the requisite service to the petitioner. 5 It is further contended that the appellate authority has also failed to take any action against respondent No. 6 (Competent Officer), who neglected to decide the petitioner’s complaint within the prescribed time. The impugned order dated 15.01.2026, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the object and scheme of the Act, 2011, which mandates accountability of public officials and time-bound delivery of services. Hence, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contended that the impugned order dated 15.01.2026 has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Guarantee Act, 2011 and after due consideration of the material available on record. It is submitted that the appellate authority has afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and has exercised its jurisdiction within the four 5 corners of law. It is further submitted that though there may have been some delay on the part of the Designated Officer in providing the information/service, the same was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to administrative and procedural constraints. It is contended that the Act, 2011 does not mandate imposition of penalty in every case of delay, and the competent authority is vested with discretion to consider the facts and circumstances before taking any punitive action. 7 Learned State counsel also submits that the Competent Officer/respondent No. 6 had taken cognizance of the petitioner’s complaint and the matter was under consideration, and merely because a formal order was not passed within the stipulated time, it cannot be presumed that there was deliberate inaction warranting penal consequences. It is argued that the authorities have acted bonafide and in discharge of their official duties. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice caused due to the alleged delay, and the writ petition is an attempt to unnecessarily invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 6 9 It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011, which reads as under :- “4. Liability to deliver Lok Sewa in stipulated time, imposition, recovery and payment of cost.- (1) Every department shall designate the person(s) responsible for delivering Lok Sewa from the date of commencement of this Act, and the fact of such designation shall be displayed in some conspicuous part of the department for the information of general public. (2) Every person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa referred to in sub-section (1) shall deliver such services in accordance with the notification under Section 3. (3) Every application for Lok Sewa shall be acknowledged by the person responsible for delivering the service or by the department, as the case may be, and every applicant shall be entitled to obtain the status of his application in the manner as may be prescribed. (4) Every person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa who fails to deliver such services within the stipulated time shall be liable to pay costs at the rate of one hundred rupees for each day during the period of delay, if any, subject to a maximum cost of one thousand rupees, which shall be recoverable from him towards payment 7 to the person applying for Lok Sewa in respect of failure to obtain such service: Provided that, no costs shall be recovered from the person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa unless he has been served with a notice and has been accorded a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Competent Officer, in the manner as may be prescribed : Provided further that, no costs shall be recoverable, where the application for such service is deficient in any manner and such deficiency has been indicated in the acknowledgment referred to in sub-section (3): Provided also that, no costs shall be recoverable, where the delay in delivering such service is, in the opinion of the Competent Officer, owing to reasons beyond the control of the person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa. (5) The manner of recovery of costs and payment to the applicant under sub-section (4) shall be as may be prescribed.” 10 From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011, it clearly transpires that a statutory obligation has been cast upon the designated अधि(cid:3)का(cid:5)री(cid:7)/person responsible to deliver the notified Lok Sewa within the stipulated time, in accordance with the provisions of the Act,

2011. The Act further ensures accountability by mandating acknowledgment of applications and providing the applicant a right to track the status thereof. In case of failure to deliver the service 8 within the prescribed time, the officer concerned is rendered liable to pay costs for the period of delay, subject to the conditions and exceptions enumerated therein, including grant of opportunity of hearing and exclusion of cases involving deficiency in application or circumstances beyond control. 11 Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the petitioner has primarily assailed the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the Act, 2011 on the ground that no penalty has been imposed upon the concerned officers and no effective direction has been issued for providing the service sought by the petitioner. From the record, it appears that the appellate authority has afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties and has taken note of the submissions as well as the explanation offered by the concerned officers before passing the impugned order. It is also apt to note that the provisos appended to Section 4(4) of the Act, 2011 are required to be duly considered before imposition of any penalty. However, it appears that the prescribed authority, in exercise of its discretion, has failed to take into account the said provisos while examining the case for imposition of penalty. 12 It is well settled that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters is limited, particularly when the authority has exercised its discretion within the framework of the statute. Merely because the petitioner is 9 dissatisfied with the outcome, it would not ipso facto warrant interference unless the order is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from patent illegality. In the present case, this Court does not find any such infirmity in the impugned order. 13 So far as the contention regarding non-imposition of penalty is concerned, the same falls within the discretionary domain of the competent/appellate authority, which is required to assess the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court is not inclined to substitute its own view in place of that of the statutory authority in absence of any manifest illegality or mala fide. 14 In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh