1 2025:CGHC:35700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3853 of 2025 Santosh Kumar S/o Arjun Lal Kashyap, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Dhobghatti, Post Baigakapa, Tahsil Lalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Officer Through State Information Commission, Old Mantralaya (D.K.S. Bhawan), Indravati Block, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Staff Officer, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appellate Authority, Joint Registrar Cooperative Society Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Right To Information Officer, Office At Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Society Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1-2 For State : : Mr. S.S.L. Tekchandani, Advocate Mrs. Akansha Verma Dabhadkar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 To set-aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2 which is arising out of order dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no. 3. 10.2 To direct respondent authorities to provide information as sought by the petitioner in his application (Annexure P/4) free of charge as per provision of RTI Act, in the interest of justice. 10.3 To impose maximum penalty on respondent authority as per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 and initiate disciplinary action against them. 10.4 To direct respondents to pay to petitioner cost of this litigation. 10.5 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble High Court in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 issued by respondent no. 2 which is arising out of order dated 08.05.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby rejected the second appeal preferred by the petitioner for seeking information. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the contention of the counsel for 3 the petitioner and submits that the order dated 16.04.2025 is correct in its eternity and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that the respondent no. 2 has passed an order dated 16.04.2025 wherein in para 9 it has held as under: izdj.k esa miyO/k vfHkys[kksa rFkk tu lwpuk vf/kdjh ds }kjk vk;ksx dks izLrqr tokc ds lkFk layXu vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k ls Li”V gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ ds }kjk tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds le{k vkosnu i= fnukad 20-02-2023 izLrqr fd;s tkus ij i= dzekad 339 fnukad 13-03-2023 dks vihykFkhZ dks ;g tkudkjh nh xbZ fd pkgh xbZ tkudkjh bl dk;Zy; esa la/kkfjr ugh gksus ds dkj.k fn;k tkuk laHko ugh gSA tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr le; lhek esa vihykFkhZ dks dh xbZ gSA vihykFkhZ ds }kjk izFke vihy fnukad 11-04-2023 dks izLrqr fd;s tkus ij izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh ds }kjk tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh lgefr O;Dr djrs gq, vkns’k fnukad 08-05-2023 ls vihykFkhZ dh izFke vihy dks uLrhc) fd;k x;k gSA tgka rd tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh rFkk izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh ds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dk lca/k gS mHk; vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk muds le+{k izLrqr ewy vkosnu ,oa izFke vihy vkosnu dk le; lhek esa fujkdj.k fd;k x;k gS tgka rd vihykFkhZ dk lquokbZ ds nkSjku ;g dFku fd;k tkuk fd tkudkjh tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa gksrs gq, Hkh tkudkjh iznk; ugh dh tk jgh gSA ijUrq izdj.k esa tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds }kjk izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh dks miyC/k djk;s tokc ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ ds }kjk tun’kZu esa izLrqr f’kdk;r vkosnu izdj.k dzekad 2210 ,oa 1854 dks dysDVj egksn; }kjk rglhynkj Fkkuk ykyiqj dh vksj izsf”kr fd;k x;k gSA mDr izdj.k tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds dk;Zyk; dks izkIr ugh gqvk gSa pwfd vihykFkhZ dh tun’kZru esa izLrqr f’kdk;r tu 4 lwpuk vf/kdkjh dks izkIr ugh gqbZ gS ,slh fLFkfr esa tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds dk;Zy; esa vfHkys[k miyC/k gksuk laHko ugh gSA vr% tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh rFkk izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh ds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku vuqlkj gksus ls mlesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk ugha gSA 6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, this Court finds that there is no good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima