Jalvati Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 – Sections 6(1), 19(3), 20(1) – application fee – blank/unfilled postal orders
Case brief
What is this about?
Common order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) dated 27/10/2025, Neutral Citation 2025:CGHC:52257, allowing 30 writ petitions: WPC Nos. 4094, 4095, 4096, 4097, 4098, 4099, 4101, 4103, 4111, 4112, 4117, 4231, 4248, 4262, 4293, 4310, 4620, 4843, 4847, 4852, 4942, 5099, 5108, 5388, 5395, 6156, 6158, 6215, 6332, 6336 of 2024. Keywords: RTI Act 2005 Section 6(1) application fee; blank/unfilled Indian Postal Orders; return of defective RTI application not a refusal; PIO duties of Gram Panchayat Secretaries; Section 20(1) penalty — 'without reasonable cause' satisfaction; Section 19(3) second appeal — 90-day limitation and condonation of delay; State Information Commission jurisdiction; natural justice; TDS information; quashing of Rs. 25,000/- penalty; liberty to file fresh RTI application with duly filled postal order.
What did the court decide?
Writ petitions allowed; the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 of the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. A/2441/2020/Raigarh (directing free supply of information and imposing Rs. 25,000/- penalty on each PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005) quashed and set aside; no order as to costs; respondent No.4 at liberty to file a fresh application accompanied by a duly filled postal order.