1 2025:CGHC:26997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2088 of 2019  Uttam Kumar Kothari @ Uttam Chand Kothari S/o Shri Gangu Ram Kothari Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Khairawahi, Post Narrotola Block Daundi, P. S. Daundi, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Suchna Ayog Through The Secretary Chhattisgarh Rajya Suchna Ayog, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Chief Information Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Suchna Ayog, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Station Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh Rajya Suchna Ayog, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Akhil Bhartiya Halba Aadiwasi Samaj Kshetrya Mahasabha Mukhyalaya (Badgaon) Balod Chhattisgarh Through The Mahamantri, Akhil Bhartiya Halba Samaj, Kshetrya Mahasabha Mukhyalaya (Badgaon) Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5. The President Akhil Bhartiya Halba Aadiwasi Samaj, Kshetrya Mahasabha Mukhyalaya (Badgaon) Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Kaushley, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Adv. For Respondents : None 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23/06/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from the office of respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/ order/ direction commanding the respondents to give information as sought by the petitioner along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- for damage. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner sought certain information from respondent No. 4 which was not given by the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority leading to filing of second appeal before the State Information Commission, Chhattisgarh. The Commission vide its order dated 09.06.2009 directed respondents No. 4 and 5 to provide information sought for by the petitioner, which was not granted leading to filing of Complaint No. 943/2009, in which the State Information Commission on 11.09.2013 imposed cost of Rs. 1,000/- against respondent No. 4 and 5 under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and thereafter on 02.01.2014, the Commission 3 passed an order to the effect that respondents No. 4 and 5 are not public authorities as prescribed under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The petitioner preferred review application against the order dated 02.01.2014 and same was dismissed by the Commission holding that neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to State Information Commission or Central Information Commission or Chief Information Commissioner vide order dated 29.03.2019. In the present petition, petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to provide information along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- for damage. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially order was passed by the State Information Commission in favor of petitioner but later on, it was modified. He contends that review application was also moved and same was dismissed by the Commission. He argues that respondents No. 4 and 5 come within the purview of RTI Act, 2005, therefore, the observation made by the Commission is erroneous. 4) Heard. 5) Admittedly, respondent No. 4 is Akhil Bhartiya Halba Aadiwasi Samaj Kshetrya Mahasabha Mukhyalaya (Badgaon), Balod (C.G.) and respondent No. 5 is its president. Petitioner moved application under Act, 2005 before respondents No. 4 and 5 and when no information was supplied, first appeal and later second appeal were preferred. In second appeal, initially order was 4 passed in favor of petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 were directed to provide the information but later on, that order was modified wherein it was held that respondents No. 4 and 5 are not public authorities. The review application was also dismissed on the ground that there is no provision of review. 6) Evidently, (i) the order passed by the State Information Commission is appealable ; (ii) respondents No. 4 and 5 are not public authorities as per the definition of public authorities laid out in Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005 and (iii) review application was also dismissed being not maintainable. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, this petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya