1 CGHC010250702026 2026:CGHC:31049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3607 of 2026 1 - Shiv Shankar Sinha S/o Late Baliram Sinha Aged About 73 Years R/o- Ward No.- 3, Motipur, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Chief Information Commissioner, Sector- 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Joint Secretary Cum First Appellate Officer School Education Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Secretary Cum Public Information Officer School Education Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 5 - Public Information Officer Office Of The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 6 - Directorate Of Public Instruction Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - District Education Officer Office Of The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For State :- Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. For respondent-State Information Commission:- Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 21.07.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash and set aside the arbitrary communication/order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the Respondent Chhattisgarh State Information Commission repeatedly returning the Petitioner's Second Appeal on procedural technicalities (Annexure P/12); b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash and set aside the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Respondent First Appellate Authority dismissing the Petitioner's First Appeal solely on the hyper- technical ground of non-affixation of a Rs. 50/- non- judicial stamp (Annexure P/7); c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash and set aside the deceptive and incomplete communication dated 25.08.2025 issued by the Respondent School Education Department, which final illegally suppressed the outcome/investigation details and merely enclosed an administrative forwarding letter without providing the baseline action-taken details (Annexure P/5). 3 d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash and aside the order dated 09.04.2025 issued by the Public Information Officer, Office of the District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, whereby the copy of the inquiry report was wrongfully withheld under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Annexure P/3). e. Writ of Mandamus or any other e. Issue a appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Public Information Officer / DistrictEducation Officer, Rajnandgaon, to immediately provide the Petitioner with a complete copy of the inquiry report prepared by the Complaint Inquiry Committee, in furtherance of petitioner's complaint concerning the misconduct of Shri Krishna Kumar Kande. f. Pass any other and further order, direction or writ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent State Information Commission has failed to exercise its statutory jurisdiction by repeatedly returning the Second Appeal on hyper- technical grounds, thereby defeating the object of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that the First Appellate Authority also acted arbitrarily in rejecting the appeal merely on account of non-affixation of a non-judicial stamp without granting an opportunity to cure the defect. Learned counsel further submits that the denial of the inquiry report by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the basis of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212, is wholly misplaced, as the information sought relates to allegations of serious misconduct by a public servant 4 involving falsification of official records and misuse of public funds. It is argued that the present case falls within the exception of larger public interest recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the authorities failed to apply the mandatory balancing test while considering disclosure. Reliance has also been placed upon Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, to contend that public interest under the RTI Act requires an objective assessment, and procedural technicalities cannot be permitted to frustrate the right to information and transparency in public administration. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the action taken by the concerned authorities is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that the information sought by the petitioner pertains to an inquiry report concerning a third party employee and, therefore, the same has rightly been denied by invoking the exemption contained under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as disclosure thereof would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It is further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not render the information automatically disclosable, as the petitioner has failed to establish any larger public interest warranting disclosure of such personal information. Learned counsel for the State Information Commission submits that the Second Appeal was returned only on account of non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements and there is no 5 deliberate denial of statutory remedy. It is contended that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy before the Commission and the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable at this stage. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the documents as well as the grounds raised in the present petition, it appears that the Second Appellate Authority has returned the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not filed an appropriate appeal and that multiple reliefs had been sought in a single appeal. 6. Further, from perusal of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the First Appellate Authority, it appears that the petitioner had sought information with regard to one Shri Krishna Kumar Kande, Assistant Teacher, particularly in respect of the complaint made by the petitioner and the entire proceedings conducted pursuant thereto, including the outcome thereof, whether the proceedings were closed or any other conclusion was arrived at. 7. Having regard to the limited grievance raised by the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit an appropriate Second Appeal before the competent 6 Second Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Upon submission of such appeal, the competent authority shall examine the same and, if any deficiency is found in the appeal memo, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to rectify such defect. Thereafter, the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be considered and decided on its own merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, expeditiously. 8. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner is directed to appear before the competent Second Appellate Authority on 03.08.2026. Upon appearance of the petitioner and submission of the appeal memo, the concerned authority shall take appropriate steps for consideration of the appeal and pass a reasoned order thereon expeditiously. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the information sought. 10.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha