1 CGHC010253122024 2026:CGHC:34347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3887 of 2024 1 - D.K. Soni S/o Late Ramji Prasad Soni Aged About 45 Years R/o Nawapara, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 2 - First Appellate Authority Officer Of Vice Chancellor, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, District- Durg, C.G. 3 - Public Information Officer Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Nehru Nagar, Digma, Ambikapur, Sarguja, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shyam Sunder Tekchandani, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. Abhuday Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.08.10 10:25:00 +0530 2 i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the dated 08.04.2024 passed by the respondent Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No.A/2858/2022, and direct the respondent Public Information Officer to provide the information sought by the petitioner within a period of 10 days, in the interest of justice. ii. Any other order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued, in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner submitted an application dated 16.03.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking copies of allotment orders issued under various heads and projects from the year 2019 onwards. The Public Information Officer, by reply dated 09.04.2022, declined to furnish the information on the ground that the name of the institution was incorrectly mentioned and the address was not clear, advising the petitioner to submit a fresh application. The petitioner's first appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority on 25.05.2022 without assigning any reasons. The second appeal preferred before the State Information Commission was also dismissed by the impugned order holding that the application had been addressed to the Government Engineering College, Ambikapur, but had been submitted to Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, and therefore the action of the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority was justified. Aggrieved 3 thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition contending that the information was denied on a technical ground without invoking any of the exemptions under Sections 8 or 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that the Public Information Officer ought to have transferred the application to the appropriate public authority in terms of Section 6(3) of the Act instead of rejecting it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders herein, the orders passed by the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority and the State Information Commission are arbitrary, unreasoned and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that the information sought by the petitioner could have been denied only on the grounds enumerated under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act; however, none of the statutory exemptions was invoked by the authorities while refusing the information. It is further submitted that, even assuming that the application had been addressed to an incorrect public authority, the Public Information Officer was under a statutory obligation under Section 6(3) of the Act to transfer the application to the appropriate public authority instead of rejecting it on a technical ground. Learned counsel further submits that there is only one Government Engineering College at Ambikapur and, therefore, the application could not have been rejected merely because of an alleged discrepancy in the nomenclature of the institution. It is 4 also urged that the State Information Commission failed to assign any cogent reasons while dismissing the second appeal and mechanically affirmed the orders of the authorities below, rendering the impugned order arbitrary, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the orders passed by the respondent authorities are legal, valid and in consonance with the provisions of law. It is contended that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 6. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 could not have been denied on the ground that the application mentioned an incorrect name of the institution and that the Public Information Officer was under an obligation to transfer the application to the appropriate public authority in terms of Section 6(3) of the Act. 5 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission. It is not in dispute that the application submitted by the petitioner was addressed to the Public Information Officer of Government Engineering College, Ambikapur, whereas the same was submitted before Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur. In view of the discrepancy in the name of the institution as well as the address, the Public Information Officer advised the petitioner to submit a fresh application. The petitioner, instead of curing the defect by submitting a fresh application before the competent public authority, chose to pursue the appellate remedies under the Act. 8. The State Information Commission has examined the aforesaid factual aspect and has recorded a finding that the institution to which the application was addressed and the institution before which it was submitted were different. The said finding is a finding of fact based on the material available on record. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the statutory authorities. Unless such findings are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, no interference is called for. 6 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from any patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or procedural impropriety warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding the applicability of Sections 6(3), 8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 do not persuade this Court to take a view different from that taken by the State Information Commission in the facts of the present case. No good ground is, therefore, made out for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Arpan