1 2025:CGHC:51308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5324 of 2025 1 - Surjeet Satnami S/o Ram Khilawan Aged About 40 Years R/o Jayastambh Chowk, Main Road, Near S.B.I., Village - Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Cg Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Information Commission Through Its Commissioner, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appellate Authority Chief Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Public Information Officer Secretary - Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15/10/2025 2 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any appropriate writ directing respondent authorities to provide information to petitioner as sought by him under the Right to Information Act within a stipulated period of 15 days in compliance of orders so passed by respondent no. 2 and 3. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any appropriate writ directing respondent no. 1 to 3 to take stern steps for recovery of fine and initiation of departmental enquiry against the respondent no. 4 as directed by the respondent no. 2 and 3. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any order/s, direction/s, writ/s as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to award cost of the petition to the petitioner. 3 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances fo the present case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 19.08.2023 before respondent no. 4/Public Information Officer, but when the respondent no. 4 has not provided information to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act within the stipulated period as provided under the Act. The petitioner preferred First Appeal before respondent no. 3 and vide letter dated 25.10.2023, the respondent no. 3 has directed respondent no. 4 either to provide information as sought by the petitioner or to give explanation for not providing information tot he petitioner as sought by him and to appear before him. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that an alternate statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, considering the submissions of the counsels, this Court finds that the present petition is not maintainable. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands 4 dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. 8. The original documents filed in the present petition be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima