1 2026:CGHC:24156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2571 of 2021 1 - Jaldeep Nayak S/o Shri Mukti Nayak Aged About 55 Years R/o Behind Akashwani Public Works Department, Utkalnagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Election Commission Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Chief Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appellate Authority, Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Right To Information Officer Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent/State No.1 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha & Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/06/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further issue any other writ or writs/ order or orders/direction or directions to the respondents authorities to provide the information as seeking by the petitioner under Right to Information Act with the fine amount prescribed under the Act, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ or writs/order or orders/direction or directions which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (In short ‘the Act, 2005’) seeking information with regard to purchase of computer and computer related articles by State Election Commission within the period as specified therein. When the information is not supplied, petitioner has filed first appeal as provided under the Act, 2005. The first appeal was disposed of observing that information was given against which, petitioner has preferred second appeal, which was also disposed of with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.300/- through cheque in terms of Section 19 (8) (b) of the Act, 2005. He contended that information which was sought was not provided, therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have proceeded against the concerned authorities under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 would submit that along with reply, concerned respondents have filed the proceedings of first appeal wherein it is clearly mentioned that after receipt of first appeal, direction was issued to supply information by 09.07.2019 accordingly on 08.01.2019, information was supplied to petitioner mentioning that 3 within the time as specified in the application under right to information, no such articles have been purchased. In support of his contention, he referred to the Page No.18 and 19 of the reply. He further contended that considering the proceedings recorded by the first Appellate Authority that information has been supplied to petitioner, however, with some delay, respondent No.2 has passed an order disposing of the appeal and directing to compensate petitioner with Rs.300/- in accordance with provisions under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Act, 2005. In the aforementioned facts of the case, no relief as prayed for by petitioner can be granted. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 taking into consideration the proceedings drawn by First Appellate Authority that information as sought for has been supplied, specifically mentioning that no computer articles have been purchased during the said period, but the Commission has taken note of the fact that information was not supplied within time and further Commission found that proper proceedings is not recorded with regard to submission of application in the register or any other mode, therefore, has issued a direction to compensate petitioner by making payment of Rs.300/- through cheque. There is no pleading in the writ petition that the authorities have not complied the direction issued by the respondent No.2/State Commission. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Respondent No.3 and 4 along with reply has filed note-sheet of the First Appellate Authority wherein considering the facts of the case of 4 the first appeal, First Appellate Authority has directed the Information Officer to supply information as sought for in the application by 09.07.2019 and fixed the case for further hearing on 09.07.2019. In the proceedings dated 09.07.2019, it is further recorded that pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2019, information as sought for has been supplied to petitioner on 08.07.2019 mentioning that during the relevant period of time, no purchase was made and thereafter, the fist appeal was closed. Aggrieved with which, petitioner has preferred second appeal before respondent No.2. 7. From the contents of the order Annexure P-1 dated 14.10.2020, passed by respondent No.2 it is not appearing that information as observed by the First Appellate Authority has not been provided to petitioner but the case is that no specific information with regard to purchase of articles have been provided. Respondent No.2 considering the order-sheet recorded by the First Appellate Authority that information has already been supplied on 08.07.2019 and further considering that there is delay in providing the information as sought for by petitioner and not maintaining the records of the application under right to information by the Information Officer has compensated petitioner by a direction to respondent-department to pay a sum of Rs.300/- through cheque within a period of 30 days. Petitioner has not pleaded in the writ petition in specific terms that direction issued by respondent No.2 of issuing the cheque of Rs.300/- in favour of petitioner has also not been complied with. 5 8. For the foregoing discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram