1 2025:CGHC:1726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6399 of 2024 1 Dr. S.K. Patel S/o Late Shri Baratram Patel, Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Working As Acting Registrar, At Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Uniuversity, Raipur (C.G.), R/o Lig-37, Sector-02, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through Its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, (C.G.) 2 Ku. Duleshwari, Section Officer, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 10/01/2025 Heard. 1. The present petition preferred by the petitioner under Article 2 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 It is prayed that his Hon’bel Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records leading to issuance of impugned order dated 30/01/2024 passed by the respondent No.1 in Second Appeal No.A/1878/2022 communicated through the letter dated 05/06/2024 for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1 in Second Appeal No.A/1878/2022, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by declaring the same as illegal and in-operative in law. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court my think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be please granted to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter dated 05/06/2024 issued by the Office of the respondent No.1 regarding the imposition of the penalty of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner on account of the delay for furnishing the document to the respondent No.2 regarding promotion order dated 13/07/2015 & confirmation order dated 13/07/2017. He further submits that before imposing the penalty, no proper and due opportunity of 3 hearing has been given by the respondent authority to the petitioner and while passing the impugned order, the respondent No.1 misused his power under the RTI Act, 2005 for the satisfaction of the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that while passing the impugned order, inadvertently some mistake occurred. However, the respondent No.1 is ready to modify the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 30/01/2024, if the matter is remitted back to the State Information Commission after quashing the said impugned order. 4. Having considered the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for both the parties, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 30/01/2024 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 with a direction to restore the Second Appeal No.A/1878/2022 in its original number and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the petitioner stands disposed of. 6. The pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti