1 2026:CGHC:17595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3554 of 2021 1 - Bhagwat Das S/o Shri Nam Das Dhritlahare Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Karhikampa, Post Office - Kuwara, P.S. - Nandghat, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Information Ayog, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Secretary Jan Suchna Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed in second appeal case no. A/2867/2020 passed by Chhattisgarh State Information Ayog, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed the respondent to provide income and expenses for the work done under Adarsh Gram Yojna at gram panchayat Gidhwa, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara from year 2015 to year 2020. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition;” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the learned Second Appellate Authority, i.e., the State Information Commission, without properly appreciating and considering the application submitted before the competent authority, as well as the material placed before the First and Second Appellate Authorities, failed to take into account that the petitioner had specifically sought complete information regarding the income and expenditure incurred for works undertaken under the Adarsh Gram Scheme in Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa, for the period from 2015 to 2020. The petitioner had initially filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 28.05.2020 before respondent No. 3, however, instead of furnishing the entire information as sought, 3 the respondent authority provided information only for the year 2015–2016 and failed to supply any information for the period from 2016 to 2020, thereby effectively rejecting the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) vide appeal memo dated 07.07.2020 and thereafter a second appeal before the State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) on 26.08.2020. However, the learned Second Appellate Authority, despite being fully aware that the petitioner had sought information for the entire period from 2015 to 2020, erroneously held that providing information for only one year, i.e., 2015–2016, was sufficient, and failed to pass any direction for furnishing the remaining information for the period 2016 to 2020. Such action amounts to a clear denial of information, contrary to the mandate of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly when the respondents are legally bound to provide complete information relating to the income and expenditure for works executed under the Adarsh Gram Yojna in Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa for the entire period sought. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in clear contravention of the relevant provisions of law and is therefore wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as there is no legal justification for the respondents to withhold information pertaining to the income and expenditure incurred for works executed under the Adarsh Gram 4 Yojna at Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa for the period from 2015 to 2020. It is contended that the mandate of Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not in any manner restrict an applicant to seek information for only a particular year, and once the petitioner had specifically sought complete information for the aforesaid period, the respondents were legally bound to furnish the same. The deliberate failure on the part of the respondents to provide information beyond the year 2015–2016 amounts to a clear denial of statutory rights and reflects arbitrary and unjustified action, which cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for furnishing the complete information as sought by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the present petition is devoid of merit, both on facts and in law. It is submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and due procedure has been duly followed at every stage. Learned counsel further submits that no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity can be attributed to the respondents, and the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is also contended that the relief sought by the petitioner is misconceived and untenable, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful examination of the pleadings and material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the subsequent development whereby a new Gram Panchayat has already been duly constituted, the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. The very basis of the petitioner’s claim has been rendered infructuous, and as such, the cause of action, as projected, no longer survives for adjudication in the present proceedings. It is further observed that, even otherwise, on merits, the impugned order appears to be well- reasoned, just, and passed strictly in accordance with the prescribed statutory provisions and due procedure of law. No illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the newly Gram Panchayat. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat