1 2025:CGHC:11028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3610 of 2023 • Bhagat Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Ram Kumar Rathore Aged About 25 Years R/o Of Village Rock, Post Kaudiya, Tahsil Seepat, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Information Officer State Information Commission, Old Mantralaya (D.K.S. Bhawan), Indravati Block, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Staff Officer Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. First Appellate Officer Under R.T.I. 2005, Upper Collector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Public Information Officer O/o. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Public Information Officer Office At National Thermal Power Corporation Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Bhagat Singh Rathore, Petitioner in Person. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.03.07 11:17:02 +0530 2 For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 06/03/2025 1. This Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order 29.03.2023 passed in FA No.26/2023 by the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 i.e. the Additional Collector, District Bilaspur arising out of the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Public Information Officer, SDO (Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur, whereby, the Appeal was dismissed. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that respondent No.5 has already provided the information which was sought by the petitioner in the question-answer form which is annexed with the petition by the petitioner himself. So, the learned SDO (Revenue) has rightly observed that the information has already been given to the petitioner and the First Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the Appeal. He would further submit that even against the order passed by the First Appellate Court, a Second Appeal would lie under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act, 2005”) and the petitioner without availing the said alternative remedy, directly approached this Court, therefore, this Petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. Petitioner in Person submits that wrong information has been supplied to him by the NTPC. He would further submit that against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority of the NTPC, he has preferred Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission. 3 4. When a query is put to the Petitioner in Person as to whether such an averment has been pleaded in the petition or not, he submits that he has given the said particulars to the earlier counsel, but he is not aware whether any such information has been brought in the petition or not. 5. After going through the Petition and the documents, it appears that neither any such pleading has been made that any Second Appeal has been preferred nor any document has been annexed with the Petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully. 7. As there is an alternative remedy of filing a Second Appeal in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act, 2005 and the petitioner has directly approached this Court against the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the First Appellate Authority, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, this Petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka