1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 498 of 2022 1 - Smt. Usha Sahu W/o Shri Mohinder Pal, Aged About 50 Years Presently Working And Posted As District Registrar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through Its Secretary, North Block Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General, Registration And Superintendent Of Stamps, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - (Deleted) Bhagirathi Singh Thakur, Advocate (Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24.04.2025) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dt. 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief including the cost of the petition, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 moved an application before the office of respondent No.3 seeking certain information. The petitioner who was posted as Public Information Officer at District Registrar, Janjgir-Champa informed the respondent No. 4 that Public Information Officer is not obliged to interpret or explain any statue or rules under the RTI. Pursuant to the order of first appeal, the desired information was provided to the respondent No.4 vide communication dated 15-02-2018 (Annexure P- 6). During the pendency of the second appeal, again information was provided to the respondent No.4 vide communication dated 24-09- 2020 (Annexure P-10). It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 4 has expired, but before the same, respondent No. 4 vide her letter (Annexure P-15) clearly stated that he has received the information and does not want to prosecute the appeal yet the respondent No. 2 in a arbitrary manner, overlooking the record has passed the impugned order Annexure P-1. The impugned order dated 15.11.2021 was passed arbitrarily which requires to be set- aside. 3. Learned State counsel as also the learned cousnel for the respondent No. 2 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 5. From the documents annexed along with this writ petition it is evident that the information sought under the RTI Act was duly furnished to the applicant / respondent No. 4 on two occasions and the applicant / 3 respondent No. 4 had communicated satisfaction with the information provided and had opted not to pursue the matter any further. Despite this categorical statement by respondent No. 4 and notwithstanding the fact that the respondent had passed away, respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P- 1), purportedly in continuation of the second appeal. The impugned order was passed arbitrarily, ignoring the subsequent developments including the clear statement of satisfaction from the original applicant and her subsequent demise. 6. The RTI Act, 2005 aims to ensure transparency and access to information, but does not intend to harass or penalize public servants who have complied with their obligations in good faith and as per the directions of the competent authority. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 15.11.2021 suffers from gross procedural impropriety and is liable to be set-aside for having been passed in a mechanical and non-judicious manner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate redressal if any adverse consequences have arisen pursuant to the impugned order. 9. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy today. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE