1 2026:CGHC:1376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 491 of 2016  Dr. Fariha Alam D/o Dr. Qamar Alam, Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mungeli, R/o In Front Of Satnam Bhawan, P W D Quarters, Near Daupara Chowk, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through Its Chief Information Commissioner, Raipur, Indrawati Block, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Indrawati Block, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. A. K. Singh State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Indrawati Block, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Collector Bilaspur, Colletorate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Additional Collector Bilaspur, Collectorate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.12 16:59:56 +0530 2 8. Jwala Prasad Agrawal, R/o Shop No.2, Santoshi Mandir, Gya Nagar, Durg, P.S. Durg, Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jitendra Pali, Mr. Dinesh Bole, Mr. Ishan Verma and Ms. Riddhi Gupta, Advocates For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shyam Sunderlal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 9.1.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned order dated 2.12.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Information Commission in the Appeal No. 3117/2014 ; 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant other relief(s)/ writ(s)/ order(s) in favour of the petitioner, which deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2) Facts of the present case are that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kota, District – Bilaspur. Complainant Jwala Prasad Agrawal moved an application before Collector, Bilaspur under RTI Act, 2005 on 27.2.2014 and sought certain information. Said application was forwarded to Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kota. After receipt of application, petitioner being the officer in-charge provided the 3 information to the Collector, Bilaspur on 23.6.2014. Meanwhile, complainant preferred first appeal before Addl. Collector, Bilaspur, who in turn passed an order on 16.7.2014 whereby petitioner was directed to provide necessary information to the complainant within period of seven days. Subsequently, complainant preferred second appeal before State Information Commission and orders impugned dated 1.7.2015 (Annexure P/7) and 2.12.2015 (Annexure P/1) were issued whereby Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh was directed to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 3) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after receipt of application, petitioner provided the information and forwarded the same to Collector, Bilaspur on 23.6.2014. He further submits that pursuant to order passed by the first appellate authority under RTI Act, 2005, the information was provided to the complainant on 22.8.2014 and the complainant preferred second appeal before the State Information Commission suppressing this fact. He contends that State Information Commission without affording opportunity of hearing, vide its orders dated 1.7.2015 and 2.12.2015 proposed imposition of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on petitioner and directed the Secretary, General Administration Department to initiate a departmental proceeding against her. He further contends that compliance report which has been placed on record would reveal that petitioner duly provided the information to the complainant. He prays to allow this petition. 4 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission would oppose. He submits as the petitioner failed to provide information to the complainant within stipulated time, orders impugned were passed according to Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005. 5) Learned State counsel submits that compliance report has been placed on record, which reveals that information sought by the complainant was provided by the petitioner. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7) Perusal of the documents would show that an application was moved by the complainant under RTI Act, 2005 before Collector, Bilaspur on 27.2.2014. The application was forwarded to Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kota, who in turn supplied the information to Collector, Bilaspur vide letter dated 23.6.2014. Collector, Bilaspur communicated the information to the complainant vide letter dated 4.7.2014. It appears that first appeal was preferred by the complainant prior to 4.7.2014. The first appellate authority vide order dated 16.7.2014 directed the petitioner to provide the information to the complainant and petitioner forwarded the necessary information to the complainant directly vide letter dated 22.8.2014. 8) The complainant suppressing these facts preferred second appeal before the State Information Commission on 12.11.2014 and the 5 Commission without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the orders impugned. 9) In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is quite clear that the information sought by complainant was duly supplied by petitioner and this fact was not brought to the notice of State Information Commission, therefore orders impugned were passed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the orders dated 1.7.2015 (Annexure P/7) and 2.12.2015 (Annexure P/1) are hereby set aside. 10) It is made clear that notice(s), if any received with regard to imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000 and notice(s), if any received with regard to initiation of departmental inquiry in furtherance of the orders impugned also stand quashed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a