1 2026:CGHC:19301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1421 of 2022 1 - Ajay Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Shivnath Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Nagar Panchayat Bagicha, Post Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Appellate Authority And Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Public Information Officer And Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Block Education Officer, Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order 1/7/2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed in appeal No.4/2020 by the respondent No.5 and the impugned order dated 12/8/2021 (Annexure P/2) passed in Second Appeal No.A/3345/2020/Jashpur, by the respondent No.2. 3 ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the requisite information to the petitioner, within a stipulated time period, under the RTI Act, 2005. iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 02.03.2020 the petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 6 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking complete information regarding the appointments of teachers conducted by VYAPAM in the year 2008–09; that vide communication dated 16.03.2020, respondent No. 6 informed the petitioner that all relevant documents, including the service books of the concerned teachers, had already been forwarded to the office of respondent No. 7, and therefore the information would be obtained from the said office and supplied to the petitioner upon receipt; that thereafter, the petitioner preferred a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act before respondent No. 5, which came to be decided vide order dated 01.07.2020 holding that documents not available in the office could not be furnished, though a recommendation was made for initiating appropriate action against the erring official; that being 4 aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before respondent No. 2, which, however, was rejected vide impugned order dated 12.08.2021 without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case; and that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, and hence the present petition has been filed. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had moved an application under the Right to Information Act seeking certain information pertaining to the appointment of teachers for the year 2008–09, and upon receipt of the said application, the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), vide communication dated 02.03.2020, informed the petitioner that the relevant documents were in the custody of the Block Education Officer, Bagicha, and that the same would be requisitioned and thereafter furnished to the petitioner; however, being aggrieved by the subsequent communication dated 16.03.2020, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which, vide order dated 01.07.2020, relying upon information received from Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha on the same date, recorded that the concerned clerk, namely B.R. Korva, had expired on 11.08.2013 and that the documents had not been handed over to any other clerk, and were therefore not available, and accordingly directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha, to conduct an inquiry into the missing records and to take 5 appropriate action against the responsible person and report within 15 days; thereafter, a second appeal was preferred before the Second Appellate Authority, which modified the order of the First Appellate Authority on the ground that, since the concerned clerk had expired, initiating action against him would not be in accordance with law, and consequently held that, as the documents were not available in the office of the PIO, the matter stood closed; being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed, and it is further submitted that such an order is unsustainable in law, as once the First Appellate Authority had passed a reasoned and proper order directing inquiry, the same could not have been set aside merely on the ground that the concerned clerk had expired, since official records cannot be treated as personal custody of any individual and remain the responsibility of the concerned office, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Second Appellate Authority is per se illegal and liable to be set aside, with a direction to the concerned authorities to trace and furnish the requested information to the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the Second Appellate Authority after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the same does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner sought information relating to the appointment of teachers for the year 2008–09 by filing an application dated 02.03.2020, and the concerned Public Information Officer had indicated that the relevant records were with the Block Education Officer, Bagicha, and that the same would be requisitioned and thereafter furnished to the petitioner; however, without awaiting the said process, the petitioner proceeded to file a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which, without properly appreciating the factual matrix and the limited scope of proceedings under the Right to Information Act, passed an order dated 01.07.2020 on the very same day it purportedly received certain information from the Janpad Panchayat Office regarding the death of the concerned clerk, and further proceeded to direct inquiry into alleged negligence, which was beyond its jurisdiction. It is evident that the PIO had not refused to provide the information but had merely sought time to obtain the documents from the competent office, and therefore, the First Appellate Authority ought not to have entered into questions of negligence or directed any inquiry. Subsequently, when the matter was carried in second appeal, the Second Appellate Authority rightly modified the order by setting aside the direction for inquiry, holding that such proceedings were unwarranted, particularly in light of the fact that the concerned 7 clerk had expired, and thus passed a reasoned and legally sustainable order. In the considered opinion of this Court, the First Appellate Authority committed an error of law in passing the impugned directions, whereas the order of the Second Appellate Authority is just, proper, and in accordance with law. Although the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, no sufficient ground is made out for interference, as the petitioner ought to have awaited the procurement of records by the PIO, and in case of non-supply, could have adopted appropriate remedies before the competent authority, including approaching the Block Education Officer where the records were stated to be available. 7. Without commenting anything on merits of the case it is directed that if the petitioner still requires the said documents, he shall be at liberty to submit an appropriate application before the concerned Block Education Officer, Bagicha, and upon receipt of such application, the said authority shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and appropriate order in accordance with law, specifically indicating whether the requested documents are presently available in the office or not, particularly in view of the fact that the records pertain to recruitment of teachers dating back to the year 2008–09. 8. With the observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat