Rahul Gupta S/o Pawan Kumar Gupta Aged About 42 Years M - 20, Sector v. 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:25001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2054 of 2025 Rahul Gupta S/o Pawan Kumar Gupta Aged About 42 Years M - 20, Sector - 1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001, Mobile 9039622335 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002 2 - Station House Officer & Public Information Officer Police Station Mahila Thana Ambikapur- 497001, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
3 - Additional Superintendent of Police & First Appellate Authority Office of Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur- 497001, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents : For Petitioner For Respondent No.1 : : For State/Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rahul Gupta, Petitioner in Person Mr. Shyam Sundr Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL No.2 & 3 17/06/2025 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following reliefs:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.24 13:20:24 +0530 2 / 6 10.1 Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding Respondent No. 2 (Station House Officer & PIO, Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District Surguja) to forthwith furnish the complete and accurate information sought by the Petitioner in his RTI application dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-2), in strict and immediate compliance with the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-6); 10.2 Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding Respondent No. 1 (State Information Commission) to immediately exercise its powers under Section 18 and Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to ensure compliance by Respondent No. 2 with its order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-6); 10.3 Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding Respondent No. 1 (State Information Commission) to immediately exercise its powers under Section 18 and Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to initiate, conduct, and conclude, within a time-frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court, proceedings under Section 20(1) for the imposition of maximum permissible penalty upon Respondent No. 2 for the unjustified delay and subsequent wilful non-compliance with its order dated 03.02.2025, and ensure recovery thereof according to law; 10.4 Issue appropriate directions to Respondent No. 2 to ensure that all future RTI applications filed by the Petitioner, particularly those pertaining to the ongoing legal matters necessitating information for his defense, are 3 / 6
Decision
dealt with and disposed of strictly in accordance with the time limits and provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, without requiring repeated interventions; 10.5 Direct the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay adequate monetary compensation to the Petitioner for the profound harassment, mental agony, financial loss (including litigation costs), and prejudice suffered due to the protracted denial of information, violation of fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21), and the necessity of approaching this Hon'ble Court repeatedly; 10.6 Award the costs of this litigation in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents; 10.7 Recommend to the competent disciplinary authority to consider initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 2 for dereliction of statutory duties and defiance of lawful orders, and against Respondent No. 3 for failure of adequate supervision, in accordance with the applicable service rules; 10.8 Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioner in person contended that the willful, persistent and contumacious refusal of Respondent No.2 (PIO) to furnish the information sought by the petitioner, despite a clear unambiguous and binding quasi-judicial order dated 03/02/2025 passed by Respondent No.1 (SIC) directing the provision of said information within 15 days. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by by the petitioner. 4 / 6 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Section 18 & 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read as under:- 18. Powers and functions of Commission. (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,.(a)who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;(b)who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;(c)who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;(d)who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;(e)who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act;and (f)in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.(3)The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:(a)summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;(b)requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;(c)receiving evidence on affidavit;(d)requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any Court or office;(e)issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and(f)any other matter which may be prescribed.(4)Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or State Legislature, 5 / 6 as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds. 20. Penalties. (1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees;Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. (2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. 6. From perusal of the above sections, it is crystal clear that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this writ petition. 6 / 6 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 before the State Information Commission. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu