1 2026:CGHC:24131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1785 of 2022 • Vivek Kumar Tandan Son Of Shri Mangalu Ram Tandan Aged About 45 Years Address Civil Court Raipur, Purani Fulding, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The State Information Commissioner, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. First Appellate Officer City Superintendent Of Police, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Station House Officer Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None. For Respondent : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the petitioner as ordered by the respondent No.1. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 3. Learned counsel for the State on instructions received by him from respondent No.3 has submitted that as per the order dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure-P/1), the concerned Station House Officer (Public Information Officer) has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- as directed by the State Information Commissioner. However, from the order itself, it is apparent that the concerned officer was directed to deposit the fine amount in the funds of the State Government, which has already been deposited. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that the amount so deposited be given to the information seeker is not in accordance with law and the amount so deposited cannot be directed to be given to the petitioner, who is the information seeker. 4. Considering the fact that the order itself shows that a direction was issued to deposit the fine amount in the funds of the State Government, as such there is no reason to say that the petitioner has suffered any loss and there is nothing on record to indicate this. On the contrary, from perusal of the record, it appears that respondent No.3 was negligent in discharging his duties, therefore, fine was imposed upon him, which has already been deposited by him in the funds of State Government without challenging the said order. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Deepti Jha