1 2025:CGHC:48696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5057 of 2025 1 - Uttam Kumar Sahu S/o Mehattar Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o C/o. Pushtak Pratishthan Satti Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Right To Information Commission Through Secretary Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Upper Collector, Mahasamund (First Appellate Authority), District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev)/ Public Information Officer Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khusbu Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 23/09/2025 1. The default(s) raised by the Registry is hereby dropped. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. To call for records pertaining to the case information of the petitioner, for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court. 10.2 To quash the impugned order dated 2 06.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.. 2 in the interest of justice. 10.3 To direct respondents to furnish/provide the information documents sought for by the petitioner in his application (Annexure P/3) free of charge. 10.4 To impose maximum penalty on respondents authorities as per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 and direct disciplinary action against them. 10.5 To direct respondents to pay to petitioner cost of this litigation. 10.6 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble High Court in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is being filed to challenge the legality, validity and proprietary of the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the respondent no. 2 has rejected the second appeal application of the petitioner without providing any information which is completely illegal, discriminatory and against the law. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and contended that the order passed by the respondent no. 2 is reasoned and speaking order and needs 3 no interference because only one information can be provided through one application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The operative para of the order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 are as under: “7. प्रकरण में पाया गया किक अपीलार्थी के द्वारा मूल आवेदन में 04 किन्दुओं में जानकारी चाही गई है उपरोक्त किन्दुओं में अपीलार्थी को पृर्थीक-पृर्थीक किवषय से संंधि*त जानकारी चाही गई है सूचना के अधि*कार अंतग,त एक आवेदन पर के वल एक की किवषय से संंधि*त जानकारी मांग किकया जाना हैं किनयमानुसार किन्दु क्र 01 की जानकारी जनसूचना अधि*कारी के द्वारा अपीलार्थी को प्रेकिषत किकया गया है। जिजसे अपीलार्थी के द्वारा अप्राप्त ताया गया है। 8. प्रकरण में संलग्न दस्तावेज के परीक्षण से पाया गया किक तत्कालीन जनसूचना अधि*कारी के द्वारा अपीलार्थी के आवेदन का किवकिनश्चय किनयमानुसार किकया गया हैं उक्त किवकिनश्चय को मान्य कर उनके किवरूद्ध जारी कारण ताओं सूचना पत्र को किनरस्त किकया जाता है।" 7. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has filed application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing information on multiple points, however, the respondent no. 2 has passed a reasoned and speaking order that under the right to information only one information can be provided by filing one application. Therefore, respondent no. 2 neither committed any jurisdictional 4 error nor committed any illegality while passing the order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) and there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner that he may file separate applications for information on separate points, if so desire. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima