Allowed

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2024WPC/1835/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State challenged a penalty and cost imposed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission for allegedly providing incorrect RTI information. The High Court held that since the second appeal was later dismissed with a finding that information was already provided, the earlier penalty order merged into that final order and cannot be given effect. Petition allowed.

What the court decided

AI extract

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Chhattisgarh… — RTI and Transparency | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1835 of 2012

¶4

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Deptt. Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya Tahsil Post Raipur (CG) P.S. City Kotwali Pin 492001.

¶5

2 - Public Information Officer Secrtariat, Deptt. Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) Tahsil Post Raipur (CG) P.S. City Kotwali Pin 492001.

¶6

---- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 –Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Commissioner, Narmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meeradatar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil Post Raipur (CG) P.S. City Kotwali Pin 492001

¶9

2 - Inderchand Soni Social Worker, Jawahar Chowk, Durg C.G., Tahsil Post Durg, City Kotwali, Pin 491001

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For the State/Petitioners: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondent No.1 None. For Respondent No.2 Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate.

¶12

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. Order on Board

¶13

02.04.2024

¶14

By way of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 15.12.2011, whereby, Respondent No.1-Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) has imposed the penalty and cost to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and 2,500/-, respectively, upon the petitioners in exercise of the power provided under Section 20 (1) and 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2005”).

¶15

It appears from perusal of the record that on 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-2), an application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, 2005 was made by Respondent No.2-Inderchand Soni and demanded information regarding the promotion/absorption of one

¶16

¶17

Prabhakar Mahatre, who has been appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III and also with regard to the procedure adopted in this regard. It appears further that prior to filing of the said application, two applications were already moved by him on 13.11.2010, while seeking the said information from the Public Information Officer, who vide its letter dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure P-4), informed the said respondent that the information as sought by him was already provided vide memo dated 19.01.2011. However, Respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with the said information preferred an appeal on 02.04.2012 and after due consideration of the said appeal, it was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure P-5) by the First Appellate Authority. It is to be seen that even before the disposal of the said appeal, a Second Appeal was preferred by the said Respondent on 25.05.2011, wherein, vide order impugned dated 15.12.2011, the alleged amount of penalty and cost has been imposed upon the petitioners by observing that the information as sought by the said respondent was provided to him incorrectly.

¶18

It, however, appears that the order impugned has been passed by the Commission imposing the above mentioned costs and penalty without considering the materials available on record and even without assigning any reason or finding to this effect in exercise of the powers provided under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. That apart, the order impugned appears to be an interim in nature, as the matter was subsequently taken up and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, it was observed by the Commission that the information as sought by Respondent No.2 has already been

¶19

¶20

provided to him, and accordingly, the case was finally closed/filed vide order dated 07.05.2012. It, thus, appears that the alleged amount of penalty and cost has been imposed by virtue of the order impugned without considering the facts involved in the matter in its proper manner.

¶21

Be that as it may, since the Second Appeal preferred by respondent no.2 has already been dismissed by the Commission by holding that the information as sought by him was already provided to him, therefore, after the dismissal of the appeal as such on 07.05.2012, the order impugned passed earlier on 15.12.2011 would, thus, be merged into the said final order and the same cannot be given effect to in any manner.

¶22

The petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observation.

¶23

No order as to costs.

¶24

vivek

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toran Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Gajendra Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr.

Scope College Of Nursing Institute Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Narayan Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

M/S Mahavir Furnitures Vs State of Chhattisgarh