1 - Lalit Wadher S/o Late Shrijadavji Wadher Aged About 74 Years R/o L v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2584 of 2025 1 - Lalit Wadher S/o Late Shrijadavji Wadher Aged About 74 Years R/o L 14, Anupam Nagar, Near Tv Tower, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur - 492002 Chhattisgarh 3 - The Public Information Officer Police Head Quarter, Near Mantralaya, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, 492001 Chhattisgarh 4 - The Public Information Officer Khamhardih Police Thana, Khamhardih, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 For Respondent no. : : Mr. S.S. L. Tekchandani, Advocate Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. 1,3,4 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief(s): “10.1 This Hon’le Court may kindly be pleased to order directing the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Thana Khamhardih to comply with the directives issued by the State Information Commission (SIC), particularly the order dated 05.12.2023 to provide the requested information within a stipulated time frame. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of case. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the just adjudication of the case and protecting rights of the petitioner and all consequential relief thereto. 10.4 Cost of the Petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 19.10.2020 lodged a police complaint with the Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, against author Amish Tripathi and others citing objectionable content in the book titled “ , which allegedly insults and defames revered Hindu deities, including Prabhu Ram and Mata Sita, as depicted in Ramayan and Ramcharitmanas. The complaint, along with the list of objectionable contents and a copy of the book, was forwarded to Khamhardih Police Station due to jurisdictional reasons. Despite multiple follow-ups, no satisfactory information regarding the status of the complaint was provided. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the case had been referred to the District Prosecutor's Office, after which a police 3 officer recorded the petitioner's statement. There after continuous efforts to seek information on the status of the case, the petitioner filed an RTI application on 12.09.2022 to the Public Information Office, Police Headquarters to seek clarity on the matter. On 22/09/2022, a letter was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Raipur office, addressed to Thana Khamhardih, instructing them to provide the requisite information within the specified time frame. on 06/10/2022, a letter was issued by Thana Civil Lines, addressed toThana Khamhardih, directing them to take appropriate action concerning the matter at hand. A copy of aforementioned letter was also forwarded to the petitioner. On 17/10/2022, Thana Khamhardih issued a reply to the RTI application, stating that a notice had been sent to Amit Tripathi and others. However, the information requested could not be provided as the investigation into the complaint remains incomplete. On 25/11/2022, Thana Khamhardih issued a reply to the RTI application, stating that the publisher has clarified in their writing that any resemblance of names, characters, places, or events to real persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental. Subsequently, the petitioner was advised to seek remedy through the appropriate court. On 30.11.2022, a second RTI application was filed with the Public Information Officer (PIO), Thana Khamhardih, seeking copies of replies from the counter parties in response to the police notice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PIO’s failure to provide the requested information violates the petitioner’s fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The right to seek information is a vital aspect of this fundamental right. Persistent non-compliance by the PIO with the directions of the State Information Commission (SIC), as mentioned in the order dated 05.12.2023 constitutes a wrongful act of the authority. 5. Learned State counsel and the counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The petitioner has prayed this Court to issue a direction to the PIO of Thana Khamhardih to comply with the directives issued by the State Information Commission (SIC) particularly the order dated 05.12.2023 to provide the requested information within a stipulated time frame. 8. Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides 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: 5 (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, 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. 9. Therefore, it is crystal clear that an alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is available with the petitioner. Hence, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 10.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima