1 2026:CGHC:15986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3112 of 2020 1 - Damarudhar Patel, S/o Shri Pyarilal Patel, Aged About 40 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Bhadarpali, Post Toshgaon, Police Station And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Public Information Officer, O/o Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Public Information Officer, O/o. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Secretary, (Public Information Officer), Gram Panchayat Gidhali Post Singhanpur, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Caust-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Luvkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) To call for records pertaining to the case from respondent no. 1, for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court, in the interest of justice. (ii) To direct respondents to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner in his application (Annexure P-2) free of charge in the interest of justice. (iii) To impose maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) on respondent no. 3 and 4 and direct disciplinary action against him, in the interest of justice. (iv) To direct respondents no. 4 & 5 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner in the interest of justice. (v) To direct respondents to pay to petitioner cost of this litigation.” 2. The facts of the present case, as borne out from the pleadings, are that the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in providing information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner is a resident of Village Bhadarpali, Post Toshgaon, Police Station and Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.06.2019, he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 3 2005 before respondent No. 5, seeking information and certified copies of orders and muster rolls pertaining to the work of digging Satbahani pond under the MGNREGA scheme for the year 2011– 2012, which was stated to be undertaken on the recommendation of the State Government. It is further averred that when no information was furnished by respondent No. 5 within the prescribed time, the petitioner preferred a first appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before respondent No. 4. However, vide communication dated 07.09.2019, respondent No. 4 failed to provide the requested information and instead informed the petitioner that respondent No. 5 did not have the relevant records or certified copies of the documents sought, and therefore, it was not possible to supply the same. The relevant documents pertaining to the first appeal proceedings have been filed collectively as Annexure P-3. Aggrieved by the non-supply of information, the petitioner thereafter preferred a second appeal before respondent No. 1 on 21.11.2019 along with the requisite fee. The second appeal was decided by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13.07.2020, whereby respondent No. 3 was directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter and to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The second appeal was accordingly disposed of without granting the substantive relief of providing the requested 4 information. The petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid directions issued by the appellate authority, the respondent authorities have failed to furnish the information and certified copies of the relevant documents, including the muster rolls and orders relating to the digging of Satbahani pond under MGNREGA for the year 2011–2012. It is contended that even after lapse of more than two years from the date of filing of the RTI application and despite the intervention of the appellate authority, the grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed. According to the petitioner, such inaction on the part of the respondents, particularly respondent No. 1, who is a statutory authority entrusted with the duty to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is arbitrary, illegal, and defeats the very object of the Act. Being left with no efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondent authorities to furnish the information sought. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner having invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and having pursued the statutory remedies available under the Act up to the stage of second appeal, the complete information as sought by him has not been furnished till date. It is contended that the petitioner continues to remain deprived of the information relating to certified copies of orders and muster rolls 5 concerning the work of digging Satbahani pond under MGNREGA for the year 2011–2012, which he had specifically sought in his application. It is further submitted that when no response was received from respondent No. 5 within the stipulated time, the petitioner was constrained to file a first appeal and thereafter a second appeal before the competent authority. However, even after adjudication of the second appeal, no effective steps were taken by respondent No. 1 to ensure compliance of the directions or to secure the information sought by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that respondent No. 1, being the State Information Commission constituted under Section 15 of the Act, is vested with statutory powers to enforce compliance and take appropriate action against erring officers, yet no such action has been taken, despite lapse of considerable time. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had specifically requested supply of complete information along with certified copies upon payment of requisite fees and had also made repeated representations before the concerned authorities. However, the respondents have failed to furnish the entire information, thereby rendering their action arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the mandate of the RTI Act. It is also contended that even pursuant to the directions issued in the second appeal, the concerned officer failed to comply with the same and did not supply the requisite documents. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the 6 authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 20 of the Act for imposition of penalty and disciplinary action against the defaulting officer. Due to such inaction, the petitioner has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony, for which he is entitled to appropriate compensation. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, where the information is not supplied within the prescribed time limit, the same is required to be furnished free of cost. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to receive the complete information free of charge, which has not been done in the present case. Lastly, it is argued that even the impugned order dated 13.07.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 does not result in actual supply of the complete information sought by the petitioner, and thus fails to achieve the very object of the Act. In view of the continued default on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed with appropriate directions, including award of costs against the respondents. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition has been primarily filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2020 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner in the second appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that a bare perusal of the reliefs sought in the petition would demonstrate that no substantive relief has been claimed against the State or its 7 departments, and the grievances of the petitioner are essentially directed against the authorities under the RTI framework. It is further submitted that the State has been arrayed as a party only in a formal capacity, without any specific allegation or cause of action being made out against it. Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that the answering respondents are merely formal parties in the present proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding non-supply of information are misconceived and contrary to the record. It is contended that the information as sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act has already been furnished to him, and this fact stands duly recorded in the proceedings before the competent authority. Learned counsel specifically draws attention to the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner dated 13.07.2020, wherein it has been categorically observed that the requisite information had in fact been provided to the petitioner. However, it is fairly submitted that there was some delay on the part of the concerned officer, namely respondent No. 5, in furnishing the said information within the time prescribed under the Act. It is further submitted that the delay in supplying the information has already been taken note of by the competent authority under the Act, and appropriate directions have been issued for initiating action under Section 20(2) of the Right to 8 Information Act against the erring officer. In compliance of the said directions, respondent No. 3 has already initiated necessary proceedings by issuing communication to the competent authority and also by issuing a show cause notice to respondent No. 5, calling for his explanation. Learned counsel thus submits that once the information has already been supplied to the petitioner, though with some delay, the principal grievance of the petitioner does not survive. It is contended that the answering respondent has acted strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the State Information Commission and has not committed any violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It is also argued that the petitioner has wrongly sought imposition of penalty and disciplinary action against respondent No. 3, despite the fact that no application for information was ever directly made to respondent No. 3, nor was any statutory appeal preferred before him. Therefore, respondent No. 3 cannot be held liable for any alleged deficiency in supply of information. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 prays that the present petition, being devoid of merit so far as the answering respondent is concerned, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the limited controversy involved in the present petition pertains to non- supply of information sought by the petitioner under the provisions 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 7. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner had initially submitted an application dated 21.06.2019 before respondent No. 5 seeking specific information and certified copies of documents relating to the work of digging Satbahani pond under the MGNREGA scheme for the year 2011–2012. It is also not in dispute that despite the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act, the said information was not furnished to the petitioner, compelling him to avail the remedy of first appeal and thereafter second appeal before the competent authority. Although the Chief Information Commissioner, while deciding the second appeal vide order dated 13.07.2020, has observed that the information was furnished to the petitioner, it has also been recorded that the same was supplied belatedly and appropriate directions were issued for initiating action under Section 20(2) of the Act against the erring officer. However, from the submissions advanced and the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner still subsists to the extent that complete and relevant information, as sought by him, has not been furnished in its entirety. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a beneficial legislation enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, and any request for information can only be denied in accordance with the specific exemptions 10 provided under the Act. The authorities cannot withhold information arbitrarily or on vague grounds. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No. 5, i.e., the Secretary (Public Information Officer), Gram Panchayat Gidhali, Post Singhanpur, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), to furnish the relevant documents to the petitioner, which were sought in his original application and have not been supplied till date, in accordance with law. However, such exercise shall be undertaken upon the petitioner filing a fresh application before the concerned authority. 9. It is made clear that this petition is being disposed of with the hope and expectation that the concerned respondent shall furnish the information as sought by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. It is further observed that the respondents cannot deny supply of information unless the case falls within the specific exemptions contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also made clear that in case of non- furnishing of the information without any justifiable reason, an adverse inference may be drawn by this Court in appropriate proceedings, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate application or proceedings in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. 10. Further, respondent No. 3 is directed to look into the matter and 11 take it seriously, and to ensure that necessary steps are taken for furnishing the requisite information to the petitioner in accordance with law and within a reasonable time. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE