High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:29338 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPC No. 3959 of 2021 Shri Beniram Yadav S/o Shri Panku Ram Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ghathili, Post Chilfi, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... petitioner versus
Legal Reasoning
1- Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Chief Information Commissioner, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Nitin Singhvi R/o Mig 59, Sec 01, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For petitioner For respondent No.3 : Ms. Pragya Bajpai, Advocate, holding the brief of : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate, Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated -2- 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 01 the State Information Commission,in the interest of justice. 10.2) That, Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may' think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2) Brief facts of the present, case are that the petitioner was serving as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Khudiya, District Mungeli (C.G.), and was designated as the Public Information Officer (for short, PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On 21.08.2018, respondent No. 3, Shri Nitin Singhvi, submitted three separate RTI applications seeking information from the petitioner on his capacity as PIO. However, the said RTI applications were not received by the petitioner and applications were not available in his office. After approximately six months, on 22.02.2019, respondent No. 3 filed three complaints (Nos. C/274/2019, C/275/2019, and C/291/2019) directly before the State Information Commission (respondent No. 1) alleging the non-supply of information within the prescribed statutory period. respondent No. 3 contended that he filed the complaints directly before the Commission as he was unaware of the remedy of First Appeal. On 04.02.2021, the State Information Commission issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and summoned him to appear via video conferencing at the NIC Room, Collectorate, Mungeli, on 29.05.2021. The petitioner duly appeared at the designated venue; however, due to internet/link failure, he could not join the hearing. He marked his presence in the attendance register and returned to his duties. This fact was duly communicated to respondent No. 2, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi. Subsequently, the State Information Commission passed an ex parte order imposing a penalty of 25,000 in each of the three complaints and ₹ -3- recommended a disciplinary action against the petitioner. Upon receipt of the Commission’s orders, the petitioner came to know about the existence of the RTI applications and promptly furnished the requested information to respondent No. 3 on 21.05.2021 and 31.05.2021, respectively. The impugned orders were passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, they are contrary to the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005. 3) Ms. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and also discharging the duties of Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She further submitted that respondent No. 3 had moved three separate RTI applications on 21.08.2018 seeking various information from the petitioner. She contended that these applications were never received by the petitioner. She also submitted that, after a lapse of six months, respondent No. 3 filed three complaint cases, i.e., C/274/2019, C/275/2019, and C/291/2019, directly before respondent No. 1, the State Information Commission, which is the second appellate authority under the Act. respondent No. 3 alleged that the petitioner failed to provide the requested information within the prescribed time frame. She stated that the Commission, on 04.02.2021, issued summons directing the petitioner to appear through video conferencing on 29.05.2021. However, due to the non-availability of the internet connectivity, the petitioner could not join the hearing. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 passed ex parte orders in all three complaints imposing a penalty of 25,000 and recommending ₹ a disciplinary action. She further stated that the information sought by respondent No. 3 was eventually provided on 21.05.2021 and 31.05.2021 She prays to set aside the impugned orders. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. She contended that though -4- applications were filed under the RTI Act, the requested information was not provided by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the complaints were filed before the State Information Commission, and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. However, he failed to appear, thus, final orders were passed in all three complaint cases. It is also argued that the petitioner has challenged three separate orders passed in three separate complaint cases in a single writ petition, and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. The
Decision
respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) From a perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged three separate orders passed in Complaint Cases No. 274/2019, 275/2019, and 291/2019 through a single writ petition. 7) Since three separate complaints were filed by respondent No. 3, and three distinct orders were passed by respondent No. 1, this petition challenging all three orders jointly is not maintainable. 8) respondent No. 3 had moved three separate RTI applications seeking information from the petitioner, who was serving as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. 9) On non-supply of the requested information, respondent No. 3 filed three separate complaints before the State Information Commission. The Commission took cognizance and issued summons. Despite the service of summons, the petitioner failed to appear before the Commission on the scheduled date, i.e., 29.05.2021, therefore, ex parte orders were passed. It is clear that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, and he failed to raise any objection regarding the maintainability of the complaints or the jurisdiction of -5- the Commission. Therefore, the contention raised by Ms. Dubey, that the complaints were filed directly before the second appellate authority cannot be entertained at this stage. 10) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, in my opinion, the Commission rightly passed the impugned orders imposing a penalty of 25,000 ₹ in each case and recommending a departmental action as the petitioner failed to discharge his functions under the RTI Act. 11) In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has challenged three separate orders in a single petition, and sufficient grounds are not made out warranting interference with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim