1 CGHC010350442022 2026:CGHC:41178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4548 of 2022 Smt. Rishpal Kaur W/o Rajendar Singh Gahlen Aged About 59 Years R/o 161, Wardhman Nagar, Vaishnav Devi Chowk Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus Chief Managing Director (Karmik) Bhilai Steel Plant, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : None present Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and the order dated 17.08.2022 may kindly be quashed and Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 directed the respondent to provide the information which the petitioner has sought under Right to Information Act, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed against the arbitrary action of the respondent in not considering the first appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Assistant Manager, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 was required to consider and pass an appropriate order on the first appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. None present for the respondent, despite service of notice. 4. From a perusal of the order, it appears that the First Appellate Authority could not entertain the first appeal on account of non- affixation of the requisite court fee along with the application. Consequently, the appeal came to be disposed of. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the concerned authority has not made any observation or given any direction regarding filing of a second appeal or for affixing the requisite court fee, and, therefore, the order passed by the authority is not in accordance with law. 3 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter that since the impugned order was passed on 17.08.2022 and the present petition has thereafter remained pending for a considerable period, at this stage, no order in favour of the petitioner can be passed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL