1 2026:CGHC:17594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3552 of 2021 1 - Maniram Sahu S/o Tijau Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Gidhwa, 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. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/04/2026 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “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/2868/2020 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 gram panchayat prastav/gram sabha prastav register of gram sabha 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 petitioner had initially filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before respondent No. 3 on 28.05.2020 seeking information pertaining to the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha register of Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa for the period from 2015 to 2020, however, the said information was not furnished to the petitioner, compelling him to file a first appeal before respondent No. 2, which also failed to result in the disclosure of the sought information, as reflected from the order dated 24.08.2020, whereafter the petitioner preferred a second appeal before respondent No. 1 on 3 26.08.2020 submitted before the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa dated 28.05.2020 and the first appeal preferred before the Chief Executive Officer (First Appellate Authority), Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh and and a copy of the second appeal dated 26.08.2020 preferred before respondent No. 1 (Second Appellate Authority). Thereafter, the learned Second Appellate Authority, vide order dated 10.02.2021, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that in the second appeal the petitioner had sought information only for the year 2015–16, whereas in the application submitted before the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Gidhwa and in the first appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner had sought information for the period 2015–2020, and thus, holding that there existed discrepancies between the applications filed before the authorities, declined to consider the appeal on merits and dismissed the same vide order dated 10.02.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Second Appellate Authority, namely the State Information Commission, has failed to properly consider the application submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority, as well as the pleadings and records placed before the First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority. It is contended that a plain reading of the petitioner’s application clearly demonstrates that the information sought pertained to the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha resolution registers for the period from 2015 to 2020, and 4 at no point did the petitioner restrict the request to the period of 2015–2016 alone. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Second Appellate Authority is wholly erroneous, misconceived, and contrary to the material available on record, as well as the relevant provisions of law, and is thus unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is in direct contradiction to the documentary evidence on record; accordingly, in light of such patent illegality and erroneous findings, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 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. 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 5 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