1 2026:CGHC:19848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2090 of 2026 Rajendra Tandan S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Tandan Aged About 48 Years R/o Tahsilbhata Ward No. 01, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Right To Information Commission Through Secretary Sector- 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commission Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Appellate Authority/ District Education Officer Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Block Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner challenges the inaction of the respondent authorities in not furnishing the information and documents sought under the RTI application dated 13.09.2024, YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.30 18:55:21 +0530 2 and seeks a direction for expeditious supply of the same in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “(i) To call for records pertaining to the case information of the petitioner, for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court. (ii) To direct respondents to furnish/provide the information documents sought for by the petitioner in his application (Annexure P-1) free of charge. (iii) To impose maximum penalty on respondents authorities as per provision of Right to Information Act 2005 and direct disciplinary action against them. (iv) To direct respondents to pay to petitioner cost of this litigation. (v) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble High Court in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by preferring a second appeal before the State Information Commission (respondent No. 2), which has been pending consideration for an inordinately long period, despite having been filed on 25.06.2025. It is, therefore, prayed that an appropriate direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to decide the said appeal expeditiously. 3. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, and without entering into the 3 merits of the case, respondent No. 2 – State Information Commission – is directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending second appeal, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh