1 2026:CGHC:16790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 900 of 2021 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur 492002 Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Lalit Chandranahu Kisan Mazdoor Sangh-Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh Headquarter Railway Station Road, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - The State Chief Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur 492002 Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Shri Syed Jayed Ziya Ali appears on behalf of Shri Arvind Srivastava, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner in Complaint Case No.C/608/2020 directing the petitioner to furnish complete file noting and file record pertaining to the appointment of Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor in District & Sessions Court of Kawardha and Rajnandgaon for the year 2019-2020 as well as the final order of appointment. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 10:54:37 +0530 2 2. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to Complain Case No. C/608/2020 from respondent no. 1 for its kind perusal. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 26/10/2020 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner. (iii) Cost of the petition. 3. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the Respondent No. 2 is an alleged convener of a union and in that capacity preferred an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information sought pertained to seeking the entire file noting and file record concerning appointment of Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor in District & Sessions Court of Kawardha and Rajnandgaon for the year 2019-2020 as well as the recommendation made by the Incharge Minister and other MLAs. The said application was rejected by the Public Information Officer, since the information sought was classified as exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. A First Appeal was preferred against the said order, and despite multiple opportunities being granted to respondent no. 2, he did not appear and finally the matter was decided on merit and the order of the Public Information Officer was upheld. Respondent no. 2 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission in terms of Section 19 of the Act, 2005 and unfortunately the State Chief Information Commissioner decided the same in his individual capacity directing the petitioner to furnish the requested information pertaining to file record and file noting alongwith the order of appointment to respondent no. 2. The appeal was preferred before the statutory body of the State Information Commission, which is duly constituted under section 15 and 3 defined under section 2(k) of the Act, 2005. However, though the appeal was preferred before the Commission, but the then State Chief Information Commissioner usurped the power of the Commission and passed the impugned order dated 26/10/2020 in his individual capacity. The State Information Commission is a multi-member body, but then the impugned order has been passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner alone and hence the same stands vitiated. Even otherwise, the information directed to be furnished is classified information exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. Unfortunately, the said facts have not been adequately considered by the State Chief Information Commissioner and the impugned order dated 26/10/2020 has been issued. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 26.10.2020 is bad in law as the same was passed by one member, whereas as per Section 15 (2) (a) and 15 (2) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 it ought to have been passed by two members. He submits that the Chief Information Commissioner should not have passed the order impugned in his individual capacity alone. It should have been passed by the Chief Information Commissioner and altleast by one State Information Commissioner which has not been done in the present case, as such, the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. 5. For the present case, it would be apt to quote Section 15 (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which reads as under:- Section 15. Constitution of State Information Commission. (2) The State Information Commission shall consist of-- (a) the State Chief Information Commissioner, and (b) such number of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding 4 ten, as may be deemed necessary. 6. From the plain reading of the aforesaid section, it can be interpretated that the State Information Commission comprises of Chief Information Commissioner and also atleast one State Information Commissioner not exceeding 10 in number. However, in the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the Chief Information Commissioner alone, whereas, it ought to have been passed by atleast two members. 7. For the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Atal Nagar, District Raipur is without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash