Disposed¶35

Bhagwat Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2026WPC/3554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005 Section 6(1); second appeal A/2867/2020; Chhattisgarh State Information Ayog / State Information Commission Raipur; Adarsh Gram Yojna; Gram Panchayat Gidhwa; Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh; District Bemetara; income and expenditure information 2015-2020; information supplied only for 2015-2016; new Gram Panchayat constituted; claim infructuous; cause of action does not survive; no interference in writ jurisdiction; petitioner at liberty to apply before newly constituted Gram Panchayat; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

None of the reliefs prayed for was granted; the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the relief had become infructuous due to constitution of a new Gram Panchayat and with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the newly constituted Gram Panchayat.

Bhagwat Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed in second appeal case no. A/2867/2020 by the Chhattisgarh State Information Ayog should be quashed. +2 more

¶20

Court's answer

Even otherwise on merits, the impugned order appears to be well-reasoned, just, and passed strictly in accordance with the prescribed statutory provisions and due procedure of law; no illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, and no case is made out for grant of the reliefs prayed for.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In view of the subsequent development whereby a new Gram Panchayat has already been duly constituted, the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage; the very basis of the petitioner's claim has been rendered infructuous and the cause of action, as projected, no longer survives for adjudication.

¶33

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the newly constituted Gram Panchayat.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPC No. 3554 of 2021) challenging the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in second appeal case no. A/2867/2020 by the Chhattisgarh State Information Ayog, which arose from an RTI application dated 28.05.2020 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking income and expenditure details of works executed under the Adarsh Gram Yojna at Gram Panchayat Gidhwa, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Bemetara for 2015-2020, of which only 2015-2016 information was supplied. HELD, disposing of the petition: (i) in view of the subsequent constitution of a new Gram Panchayat, the relief sought is infructuous and the cause of action no longer survives; (ii) on merits the impugned order is well-reasoned, just and in accordance with the prescribed statutory provisions and due procedure, disclosing no illegality, perversity or procedural irregularity warranting interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction; and (iii) the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the newly constituted Gram Panchayat.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17595

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitally signedbyRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3554 of 2021

¶7

1 - Bhagwat Das S/o Shri Nam Das Dhritlahare Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Karhikampa, Post Office - Kuwara, P.S. - Nandghat, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Information Ayog, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, DistrictBemetara (C.G.), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Secretary Jan Suchna Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A.
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani,
	Advocate.

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

17/04/2026

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶19

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed in second appeal case no. A/2867/2020 passed by

¶21

Chhattisgarh State Information Ayog, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.).

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed the respondent to provide income and expenses for the work done under Adarsh Gram Yojna at gram panchayat Gidhwa, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara from year 2015 to year 2020.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition;”

¶24

Brief facts of the case, is that, the learned Second Appellate Authority, i.e., the State Information Commission, without properly appreciating and considering the application submitted before the competent authority, as well as the material placed before the First and Second Appellate Authorities, failed to take into account that the petitioner had specifically sought complete information regarding the income and expenditure incurred for works undertaken under the Adarsh Gram Scheme in Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa, for the period from 2015 to 2020. The petitioner had initially filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 28.05.2020 before respondent No. 3, however, instead of furnishing the entire information as sought,

¶25

¶26

the respondent authority provided information only for the year 2015–2016 and failed to supply any information for the period from 2016 to 2020, thereby effectively rejecting the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) vide appeal memo dated 07.07.2020 and thereafter a second appeal before the State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) on 26.08.2020. However, the learned Second Appellate Authority, despite being fully aware that the petitioner had sought information for the entire period from 2015 to 2020, erroneously held that providing information for only one year, i.e., 2015–2016, was sufficient, and failed to pass any direction for furnishing the remaining information for the period 2016 to 2020. Such action amounts to a clear denial of information, contrary to the mandate of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly when the respondents are legally bound to provide complete information relating to the income and expenditure for works executed under the Adarsh Gram Yojna in Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa for the entire period sought.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in clear contravention of the relevant provisions of law and is therefore wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as there is no legal justification for the respondents to withhold information pertaining to the income and expenditure incurred for works executed under the Adarsh Gram

¶28

¶29

Yojna at Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa for the period from 2015 to 2020. It is contended that the mandate of Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not in any manner restrict an applicant to seek information for only a particular year, and once the petitioner had specifically sought complete information for the aforesaid period, the respondents were legally bound to furnish the same. The deliberate failure on the part of the respondents to provide information beyond the year 2015–2016 amounts to a clear denial of statutory rights and reflects arbitrary and unjustified action, which cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for furnishing the complete information as sought by the petitioner.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the present petition is devoid of merit, both on facts and in law. It is submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and due procedure has been duly followed at every stage. Learned counsel further submits that no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity can be attributed to the respondents, and the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is also contended that the relief sought by the petitioner is misconceived and untenable, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful examination of the pleadings and material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the subsequent development whereby a new Gram Panchayat has already been duly constituted, the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. The very basis of the petitioner’s claim has been rendered infructuous, and as such, the cause of action, as projected, no longer survives for adjudication in the present proceedings. It is further observed that, even otherwise, on merits, the impugned order appears to be wellreasoned, just, and passed strictly in accordance with the prescribed statutory provisions and due procedure of law. No illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶34

The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the newly Gram Panchayat.

¶35

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶38

Raghu Jat

Bhagwat Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Ram Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Meghnath Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Vidya P. Tandy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Prasad @ Paltu Chakradhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maniram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh