1 2025:CGHC:10393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 29 of 2022 1. Meenal Soni D/o Manohar Lal Soni Aged About 25 Years R/o 141 In front Of Garden, Shikshak Nagar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. First Appellant Officer, Office Of Senior Superintendent Of Police, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Superintendent Of Police (Village), Superintendent Of Police Office, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Information Officer Office Of Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Cause title is taken from the Case Information System For Petitioner : Shri Amit Nayak, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 3/3/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 10-6-2021 passed in Appeal No.A/2564/2020 by the respondent No.4. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner moved an application dated 23-12-2019 under the Right to Information Act, 20051 and sought certain information regarding details of cash book from 1-4-2019 to 23-12-2019 and details about the officer, who is in charge of cash book. The said application was dismissed by order dated 20-2-2020 and against the said order the petitioner filed first appeal which has also been dismissed by order dated 20-3-2020. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the respondent No.4, which has been decided by the order impugned dated 10-6-2021 wherein only one information was provided and declined to provide remaining two information. He would also submit that on 10-6-2021 the petitioner moved an application and sought for adjournment on medical grounds, however, without considering the prayer the respondent No.4 passed the impugned order in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 would support the order impugned. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From the order dated 10-6-2021 passed by the respondent No.4 it is manifest that after considering all the aspects of the matter in its letter and spirit directed the concerned Information Officer to provide the cash book details for the period from 1-4-2019 to 23-12-2019 within a period of thirty days. With regard to the details of the in charge officer of the cash book, as sought for by the petitioner at points No.2 & 3, the respondent No.4 categorically observed that by exercising the powers conferred under the RTI Act, the State Government by its directives dated 22-10-2005 bearing No.7-16/2005/1/6 exempted to provide such information and hence the respondent No.4 declined to provide information. The order impugned is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 6. As a sequel, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri 1 for short ‘the RTI Act’ K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.03.04 14:28:53 +0530