Partly allowed

The Public Information Officer, v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2024WPC/5432/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission directing them to affirm non-availability of information and subsequent Section 18 proceedings. The High Court set aside the order, quashed the notice, and remitted the matter for a fresh order after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.02.2024 set aside; notice dated 07.08.2024 under Section 18 of RTI Act quashed; matter remitted for fresh order after hearing.

The Public Information Officer, Vs Chhattisgarh… — RTI and Transparency | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:47441

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5432 of 2024

¶6

1 - The Public Information Officer, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya, In Front Of The Koni Police Station, Koni, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya, An Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, Through Its Registrar, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya, (The Public Authority Under RTI Act 2005), In Front Of The Koni Police Station, Koni, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through Its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Rudresh Gupta, Prakrit Vihar, Near Sai Aanandam, Uslapur, Tehsil And DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents

¶11

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

03/12/2024

¶16

Heard on admission.

¶17

This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been

¶18

preferred by petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

¶19

“ 10.1 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be

¶20

pleased to Issue the appropriate writ/order/direction and quash, set aside the impugned order dated

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

15/02/2024 passed in Appeal No.A/3474/2022 and also quash the consequential proceeding initiated by the respondent No.1, (Annexure-P/1) by declaring the same is illegal and in-operative in law.

¶23

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.2, before the state information commission. Any further quash the proceeding of the complaint case No. C/3270/2024/Bilaspur, by declaring the same is bad in the eyes of law.

¶24

10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in Appeal No. A / 3474 / 2022, respondent No.1 -the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur has directed petitioner No.1 vide order (Annexur-P/1) dated 15.2.2024 to inform respondent No.2/applicant in affidavit that information sought for by the applicant is not available in the University. He would further submit that such order cannot be passed by the respondent No.1. He further submitted that since the impugned order dated 15.2.2024 has not been complied with, therefore, respondent No.1 has initiated proceeding against petitioner No.1 under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’), as to why action be not taken against him under the Act, 2005.

¶26

In reply, counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that while passing order dated 15.2.2024 (Annexure-P/1), inadvertently some mistake occurred and by mistake petitioner No.1 has been directed to give information to respondent No.2 in affidavit that information sought for by him is not available. He would further submit that respondent No.1 is ready to modify the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) dated 15.2.2024 if the matter is remitted back to the State Information Commission after quashing the impugned order. He further submitted that respondent No.1 is also ready to recall the notice dated 07.8.2024 issued under Section 18 of the Act, 2005.

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

Mr. Tekchandani, counsel appearing for respondent No.1 specifically given undertaking as above.

¶29

Having considered the aforesaid contentions of counsel for both the parties, this petition is disposed of. The impugned order (Annexure-P/1) dated 15.2.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside and notice dated 07.8.2024 issued by it under Section 18 of the Act, 2005 is also quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 with direction to pass fresh order in Appeal No.A / 3474 / 2022 in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶30

With aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the petition stands disposed of .

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Rukhsar

The Public Information Officer, v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Public Information Officer, v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Ravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Mittal Minerals Vs Union of India

Jageshwar Prasad Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitin Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kailash Chandra Godwani Vs Smt. Krishna Lekhwani

Son Das Vs the State of Chhattisgarh