Shri Akhileshwar Das Vs The State Information Commission

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:41350

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4077 of 2025

¶6

1 - Shri Akhileshwar Das S/o Late Lokeshwar Das Aged About 51 Years Having Its Registered Address At Village Adawal, Khaspara, Jaipur Road, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The State Information Commission Having Its Offices At- Sector 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) / First Appelate Tribunal Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G.

¶10

3 - Public Information Officer, Tehsildar Through The Office Of Tehsildar, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. ----Respondents

¶11

Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶13

18/08/2025

¶14

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s);-

¶15

Digitallysigned byJYOTI JHA Date:2025.08.2312:40:59+0530

¶16

10.1. A writ and/or an order in the nature of an appropriate writ do issue directing the respondent authorities to forthwith supply the information as sought by the petitioner under clause(c) of his application dated 05.07.2022.

¶17

ii. A writ and/or an order directing the respondent authorities to forthwith initiate appropriate disciplinary action and such action as provided under the Right to Information Act under Section

¶18

2

¶19

18, 19 and 20.

¶20

iii. Any other which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. iv. The cost of the petition may also be awarded.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.04.2025 & 22.10.2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, whereby the Commission has failed to take appropriate penal action against the concerned authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005, despite the prolonged delay and dereliction of duty in providing the information sought by the petitioner. The petitioner also assails the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the First Appellate Authority (SDO Revenue, Jagdalpur), and the initial response dated 28.02.2022 by the Public Information Officer/Tehsildar, Jagdalpur, which failed to address the specific queries raised in the petitioner's RTI application dated 05.02.2022, especially with regard to the demarcation of land bearing Khasra No. 234.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a practicing advocate and citizen of India, had sought specific information regarding land demarcation and proceedings related to Khasra numbers 91/4, 91/6 (now Khasra no.234) in Jagdalpur. Despite clear documentary evidence that a demarcation was carried out on 17.01.2021 by the Nayab Tehsildar and his team as admitted in a report dated 26.10.2021, the authorities later contradicted themselves by claiming only a spot verification had occurred, not demarcation. The petitioner followed due process by filing appeals under Sections 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, which led to repeated notices and directions from the First Appellate Authority and the Commission to furnish the correct

¶23

3

¶24

information. However, these directions were not complied with in time, and inconsistent or misleading responses were provided to the petitioner. The inaction of the authorities over nearly three years, including failure to comply with statutory deadlines and deliberate attempts to withhold crucial public records, prompted the filing of this writ petition. Though certain information was eventually provided on 26.05.2025, the delay and the piecemeal, evasive conduct of the Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority stand in violation of the Right to Information Act. The petitioner contends that the show cause notices and proceedings initiated were superficial and no real accountability was fixed on the responsible officers, thereby frustrating the objective of the RTI Act. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions and reliefs from this Court.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the information which the petitioner has sought for, has already been provided by the concerned officer .

¶26

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the information which the petitioner has sought for, has already been provided by the Public Information Officer, therefore the State Information Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 03.04.2025, prima facie, it appears no jurisdictional error committed by the State Information Commission. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶28

4

¶29

7. However, if the petitioner seeks other information, he may file an appropriate application before an appropriate forum.

¶30

8. It is made clear that, this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case.

¶31

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33