1 CGHC010285392026 2026:CGHC:33676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3982 of 2026 Dr. Dhankumar Mahilang S/o Shri Kalam Mahilang, Aged About 38 Years Occupation Former In-Charge Assistant Librarian, Central Library, Sarkanda, BSCL R/o Ward No. 46, Ganesh Nagar, Chuchuhiyapara, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Chief Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The Public Information Officer Office Of Collector, Bilaspur, Collectorate Building, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Dr. Dhankumar Mahilang, in person For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 03.08.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner - Dr. Dhankumar Mahilang, appearing in person, calls in question the inordinate delay in disposal of his Second Appeals preferred under the YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.03 18:03:10 +0530 2 provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘RTI Act, 2005’) and seeks a direction to Respondent No.1 to decide the same within a stipulated period. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “i. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to hear and decide Second Appeals A/5323/2024, A/5330/2024 & A/3409/2025 within 4 weeks. ii. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to furnish complete information sought vide RTI Application/Jan- Darshan Application dated 08.07.2024 P-22 within 7 days. iii. Issue Writ directing Respondent No.1 to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 20(1) RTI Act, 2005 against concerned PIO. iv. Issue Writ directing Respondent No.2 to forward the matter to ACB/EOW for investigation regarding illegal cash disbursement dated 13.01.2024 P-18 to P-21. v. Issue Writ directing Respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to Petitioner for violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) & 21. vi. Pass any other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submits that he has preferred three Second Appeals bearing Appeal Nos. A/5323/2024, A/5330/2024 and A/3409/2025 before respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, despite the statutory mandate contained in Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, the said appeals have remained pending for an inordinately long period without any decision. It is further submitted that repeated representations and reminders have also failed to evoke any response from the competent authority, as such a direction be issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the said appeals within a short span of time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has sought the relief of disposal of three separate Second Appeals in a single writ petition, which is not in accordance with law. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the said technical ground. 4. Learned State Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 adopts the aforesaid objection and submits that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in a single writ petition, as the prayer pertains to disposal of three distinct statutory appeals. 5. I have heard the petitioner appearing in person, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned State Counsel appearing for 4 respondent No.2, and have also perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is merely technical in nature. Since all the Second Appeals arise under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the grievance of the petitioner is common, namely, non-disposal of the appeals within the time prescribed under law, the objection does not merit acceptance and is, accordingly, overruled. 7. Consequently, respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide Second Appeal Nos. A/5323/2024, A/5330/2024 and A/3409/2025, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be considered by the competent authority while deciding the aforesaid appeals. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh