1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5223 of 2021 Amarchand Pahare, S/o Late Shri Ramavtar Pahare, Aged About 52 Years, Presently Working As - PIO And Deputy Director, Employment And Self Employment Guidance Centre, Koni, Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Green Park Colony Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through - Secretary, Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - First Appellate Authority And Deputy Director, Directorate, Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, 4th Block, 1st Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Public Information Officer, Directorate, Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, 4th Block, 1st Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - Shri Arun Patel, Mahamaya Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.), Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.04.21 11:49:35 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur (CG) in Second Appeal No.A/1413/2020/- Bilaspur, the Petitioner has filed the present petition. 2. By way of this petition, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1That, the Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to quash/setting aside the impugned order dated 25/06/2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.-01) passed in Complaint Case No. C/1601/2017/Raipur (Annexure P/01) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the petitioner further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remand the Complaint Case No.C/1601//2017/Raipur to the Respondent No.- 01 and issue a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to being heard to the petitioner and it may be decided on merits in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. Stated concisely, the facts of the case, as canvassed by the Petitioner, are that Respondent No.4 filed an application dated 3 17.7.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth “the RTI Act”) before the Public Information Officer (PIO) and Deputy Director, Employment and Self-Employment Guidance Centre, Koni, Bilaspur (CG) seeking certified copies of certain information on distinct subjects. The Petitioner, serving as PIO and Deputy Director, Employment and Self Employment Guidance Centre, Koni, responded vide letter dated 13.8.2019. The Petitioner informed Respondent No.4 that the application sought information on more than one subject, which is impermissible under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the information could not be provided, thereby dismissing the original application filed by Respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the response, Respondent No.4 filed a First Appeal. The First Appellate Authority issued a notice on 27.9.2019, directing the Petitioner to appear on 5.10.2019. Subsequently, the First Appellate Authority passed the order dated 21.10.2019 directing the Petitioner to provide information relating to Point No.1 ‘free of cost’ and while advising the applicant to file separate applications for the remaining queries. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner (PIO) preferred a Second Appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (Respondent No.1). The learned Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 25.6.2021, without considering the explanation offered by the Petitioner or the official records, dismissed the Second Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition. 4. Ms. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that 4 the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 is legally unsustainable, as it was passed mechanically without any factual basis or considering the reply of the Petitioner. She submits that the Commission failed to appreciate that the PIO is required to provide only such information as is available on record. She submits that as per the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 10.7.2008 “Information” under Section 2(f) refers to ‘Material’ in the form as held by the public authority. The PIO is not required to conduct research, create new data, or deduce conclusions to satisfy an applicant. The Commission failed to appreciate that the Petitioner was not legally bound to perform such research for the respondent. The direction of the Commission compelled the Petitioner to gather and compile voluminous information, which is both illegal and beyond the scope of the RTI Act. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment/order rendered in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No.6454/2011, arising out of SLP(C)No.7526/2009). 5. Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the original applicant submitted an application dated 17.7.2019 under Section 6(1) of the RTI, seeking information across five distinct and unrelated categories, including scheme, expenditure, salary records and vehicle logbooks. The PIO rejected the application on 13.8.2019 on the grounds that it contained multiple subjects, which were contrary to the statutory 5 framework. She further submits that the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide information regarding Point No.1 free of cost and advised the applicant to file separate applications for the remaining queries. The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, State Information Commission (Second Appellate Authority) held that the First Appellate Authority’s order was strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Right to Information (submission of application) Rules, 2009 (in short “the Rules, 2009”). The Commissioner, by exercising its powers under Section 19(8)(Ka)(1), affirmed the First Appellate Authority’s order in toto and directed the PIO i.e. the Petitioner to provide the information for the first subject free of cost vide registered post within 30 days. She lastly submits that the impugned order ensures the prevention of misuse through omnibus queries while simultaneously protecting the citizen’s right to information. Hence, the impugned order is legal, reasoned and in strict conformity with the RTI Act and the Rules, 2009, warranting no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From a bare perusal of the record, it appears that Respondent No.4 (the information seeker) filed an application seeking multiple pieces of information under a single request in one application before the PIO. When the PIO failed to furnish the subject information, a First Appeal was preferred by Respondent No.4. The First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 21.10.2019 observed that the applications seeking information under the RTI 6 Act was not in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules, 2009, which provides that an application shall relate to a single subject matter and shall not ordinarily exceed 150 words. The Rules further stipulate that if an applicant wishes to seek information on more than one subject, the PIO may respond only to the first subject and advise the applicant to file separate applications for each of the subejct matter. For better appreciation of facts, Rule 3 is reproduced below : 3. Request relate onlv to single subject matter - A request in writing for information under. section 6 of the Act shall relate to one subject matter and it shall not ordinarily exceed one hundred and fifty words. If an applicant wishes to seek information on more than one subject matter, he shall make separate applications: Provided that in case, the request made relates to more than one subject matter, the Public Information Officer may respond to the request relating to the first subject matter only and may advise the applicant to make separate application for each of the other subject matters. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2019, the Petitioner (PIO) preferred a Second Appeal before Respondent No.1 raising his grievances. Respondent No.1, while affirming the order passed by the First Appellate Authority vide the impugned order, maintained the direction to furnish information relating to Point No.1 ‘free of cost’. 8. Admittedly, the First Appellate Authority passed a reasoned order directing the Petitioner to provide information with regard to Point 7 No.1 and advised the applicant (Respondent No.4 herein) to file separate applications to obtain other pieces of information under the RTI Act. This direction strictly adheres to Rule 3 of the Rules, 2009 as the respondent sought multiple categories of information in a single request, which is impermissible. However, the First Appellate Authority erroneously directed the Petitioner to provide said information ‘free of cost’ without any finding of unreasonable delay or default on the part of the PIO i.e. the Petitioner herein. Subsequently, the Second Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1), while dismissing the Second Appeal and affirming the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, also maintained the ‘free of cost’ directive despite absence of such finding. 9. For the foregoing reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by the Second Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1) warrants modification. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 is modified to the extent that the requirement to provide information with regard to Point No.1 “free of cost” is hereby set-aside. The Petitioner is directed to furnish the information pertaining to Point No.1 of the original application, subject to the payment of the prescribed fees by Respondent No.4, as per the subject Rules. For all other queries, Respondent No.4 is at liberty to file fresh, separate applications. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that certain information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. 8 11. It is manifest that the present Petitioner (PIO) did not provide specific justification for such exemptions, while initially denying the information. However, the Petitioner would be at liberty to raise these statutory objections, if any fresh application is filed by Respondent No.4 in future. 12. With these observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay