Shri Nanakram Raghwani v. Public Information Officer Office Of Collector, Mineral Branch, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

17.06.2026

1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the 2 Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Second Appeal Case No. 3889 A/3487/2023 (Shri Nanakram Raghwani v. Public Information Officer and another), whereby the State Commission has closed the second appeal proceedings with a finding that “no further action is required in the said case”. The petitioner has also sought consequential relief alleging non-supply of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Royalty Clearance Certificates (RCC), royalty slips, transit passes and related documents pertaining to the District Mineral Branch, Dhamtari for the period 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2020, and has further alleged large-scale irregularities, manipulation and destruction of public records in the Mineral Department.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner had submitted an RTI application dated 28.09.2022 seeking certified copies of RCCs and related royalty documents issued during the period 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that though the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.12.2022 directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information, the same was not fully complied with. The petitioner thereafter approached the State Commission by filing second appeal, which has been disposed of by the impugned 3 order dated 23.04.2025. The petitioner alleges that subsequently the respondents have taken a stand that the records sought have been destroyed, which according to the petitioner is illegal, contrary to statutory rules and administrative instructions, and indicative of serious irregularities in the Mineral Department.

3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned State Commission (Respondent No. 3) for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by State Commission (Respondent No. 3) in Second Appeal Case No. A 3487/2023.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) directing the Public Information Officer (Respondent No. 1) to forthwith provide the entire information and documents sought by the petitioner vide his RTI application dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P/2).

10.4 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased issue an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) directing the State Authorities to identify and fix personal responsibility of the concerned officers/officials responsible for illegal destruction of public 4 records, and to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against them in accordance with law;

10.5 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased issue an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) declaring that the destruction of RCC records and royalty slips, during pendency of proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of statutory and administrative instructions, and consequently direct appropriate penal consequences under Section 20 of the RTI Act against the concerned Public Information Officer;

10.6 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased issue an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) directing Respondents to reconstruct the records, produce the complete RCC register, and place on record the mandatory Form-6 destruction register, failing which adverse inference be drawn against the authorities;

10.7 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is arbitrary and unsustainable, as it has been passed on an alleged report dated

08.05.2025, which itself is subsequent to the date of the impugned order i.e. 23.04.2025, thereby rendering the entire 5 decision process doubtful and illegal. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to produce mandatory destruction records in Form-6 as required under Rule 9(3) of the Public Records Rules, 1997. It is also contended that the administrative instructions dated 13.12.2000 of the Directorate of Geology and Mining mandate preservation of RCC records for a minimum period of five years and therefore, the claim of destruction is false and an attempt to suppress serious financial irregularities. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned action violates the circular dated 28.06.2010 issued by the General Administration Department prohibiting destruction of RTI-related records during pendency of proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the State Commission has passed the impugned order within its jurisdiction after considering the material available on record. It is submitted that the information sought by the petitioner could not be furnished as the concerned records were not available in the office as per the report of the Public Information Officer. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6

7. The primary issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the State Commission suffers from any jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Upon careful consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner had pursued remedies under the RTI Act, 2005 and the matter had reached the stage of second appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, upon consideration of the available material and report of the Public Information Officer, has concluded the proceedings by recording that no further action is required in the matter. The scope of interference by this Court in proceedings under the RTI Act is limited and this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over factual determinations made by the statutory Commission.

9. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding alleged contradiction in the date of the report and the impugned order is concerned, the same pertains to factual aspects requiring detailed examination of records. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, allegations regarding destruction of records, non-maintenance of Form-6, and alleged irregularities in issuance of RCCs require evidentiary examination, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. 7

10. It is also a settled principle of law that in matters arising under the Right to Information Act, the High Court exercises limited judicial review, confined to examining legality of the decision-making process and not the correctness of factual findings, particularly when the statutory appellate mechanism has already been exhausted.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference with the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is made out. The petition is devoid of merit.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

13. It is made clear that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of any allegation of irregularity or otherwise, which may be examined by the competent authority in accordance with law, if so required. Judge (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) sd/- Vishakha