Anil Banvariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP-28882-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 28882 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030184782025
ANIL BANVARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K S Tomar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Avnish Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.13743/2026, an application for intervention, and I.A.
No.792/2026, an application seeking impleadment of the applicant, Aman
Arora Jain, as a respondent in the present petition.
None appears on behalf of the applicants to press the aforesaid
applications.
In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No.13743/2026 and I.A. No.792/2026 are
hereby dismissed as not pressed.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, calling in question the orders dated 27.03.2024
passed by the respondent No.2/State Information Commissioner, whereby the
respondent No.2, while exercising powers under the Right to Information
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/31/2026
12:11:43 PM

2 WP-28882-2025
Act, 2005, directed initiation of an inquiry against the petitioner in

connection with the alleged failure to furnish information within the
prescribed period and and order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Secretary, State
Information Commission whereby directions have been issued for initiation
of departmental proceedings against him under the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders
have been passed without properly appreciating the factual background of
the matter and the documents placed before the State Information
Commission. It is contended that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner
was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Lashkar, District Gwalior, and an
application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, was
submitted by one Aman Arora seeking a copy of the compliance report
allegedly submitted before this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.19017 of
2020.
It is further submitted that, in the aforesaid PIL, this Court, vide order
dated 18.12.2020, had directed Aman Arora to approach the concerned Sub-
Divisional Officer and take appropriate steps, with a further direction to
submit a compliance report before this Court within the stipulated period.
However, since no representation was submitted by Aman Arora before the
petitioner, the compliance report could not be furnished within the prescribed
period. Subsequently, upon coming to know about the proceedings, the
petitioner submitted the compliance report before this Court on 13.09.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Division
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/31/2026
12:11:43 PM

3 WP-28882-2025
Bench of this Court, after considering the compliance report and the

independent inspection report submitted by the Officer on Special Duty,
disposed of the aforesaid PIL vide order dated 07.02.2022. The Special
Leave Petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.09.2022. Thus, the controversy
relating to the alleged encroachment and compliance with the directions
issued by this Court had already been examined and concluded.
It is also contended that the petitioner had duly apprised the State
Information Commission of the developments before this Court and had
specifically informed it that the compliance report had already been
submitted and the documents sought by the applicant were not available in
the office of the petitioner at the relevant time. Despite the aforesaid factual
position and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2
proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 directing initiation
of an inquiry against him. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.04.2025, the
respondent No.2 further directed initiation of departmental proceedings under
the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
Learned counsel vehemently submits that the respondent No.2 has
exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the employer department to initiate
departmental proceedings against the petitioner, particularly when the factual
circumstances leading to the alleged delay had neither been properly
considered nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner
before passing the impugned orders. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned orders are arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/31/2026
12:11:43 PM

4 WP-28882-2025
provisions of law and deserve to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the
petition and submits that the State Information Commission, while exercising
its statutory powers under the Right to Information Act, 2005, had
considered the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner, in his capacity as
Public Information Officer, to furnish the requisite information within the
prescribed period. It is submitted that the directions issued by the
Commission were intended to ensure compliance with the statutory
obligations imposed upon the Public Information Officer and to examine the
circumstances in which the information was not furnished to the applicant.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the
Commission, upon finding non-compliance with its directions, considered it
appropriate to direct initiation of an inquiry against the petitioner and,
accordingly, passed the impugned orders. On these grounds, dismissal of the
petition is prayed for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The controversy involved in the present petition essentially revolves
around the legality and propriety of the directions issued by the State
Information Commission for initiation of an inquiry and departmental
proceedings against the petitioner, particularly in the backdrop of the
proceedings undertaken before this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.19017 of
2020.
From a perusal of the documents placed on record, it appears that the
original proceedings before this Court arose out of a dispute concerning
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/31/2026
12:11:43 PM

5 WP-28882-2025
alleged encroachment over Government land bearing Survey No.483. Vide

order dated 18.12.2020, this Court had directed the applicant Aman Arora to
approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer and take appropriate steps. A
direction was also issued for submission of a compliance report.
The material available on record further indicates that, upon the
petitioner coming to know about the proceedings, the requisite compliance
report was submitted before the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the
Division Bench directed the Officer on Special Duty to conduct an
inspection at the site, and upon consideration of the inspection report, the
PIL was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2022. The challenge to the said
order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also failed, as the Special Leave
Petition was dismissed on 12.09.2022.
Thus, the subsequent developments in the aforesaid proceedings before
this Court were relevant and material circumstances which were required to
be taken into consideration by the State Information Commission while
examining the explanation furnished by the petitioner.
It is also evident from the record that the petitioner had apprised the
Commission of the developments before this Court and had placed his
explanation with regard to the non-availability of the information sought by
the applicant at the relevant point of time. However, the impugned orders do
not reflect proper consideration of the aforesaid explanation and the
subsequent judicial proceedings, which had a direct bearing upon the
controversy.
It is settled that whenever a statutory authority exercises its powers
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/31/2026
12:11:43 PM

6 WP-28882-2025
affecting the service rights and consequences of a public servant, such

exercise of power must be supported by relevant material, must remain
within the bounds of its statutory jurisdiction and must conform to the
principles of natural justice. The mere existence of an allegation regarding
delay in furnishing information cannot, by itself, dispense with the
requirement of examining the explanation offered by the concerned Public
Information Officer and the circumstances in which the alleged default
occurred.
Further, the direction for initiation of departmental proceedings has
serious civil consequences for the petitioner. Therefore, such a direction
could not have been issued mechanically, without due consideration of the
relevant facts and the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The authority
was required to examine whether the circumstances disclosed any deliberate
or culpable failure on the part of the petitioner in discharging his statutory
obligations.
In the present case, the impugned orders, particularly the order dated
29.04.2025, do not demonstrate due consideration of the aforesaid aspects.
The respondent No.2 appears to have proceeded on the premise of non-
compliance without adequately examining the explanation and the
subsequent developments brought to its notice by the petitioner.
This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned
orders dated 27.03.2024 and 29.04.2025 cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law and are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned orders
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/31/2026
12:11:43 PM

7 WP-28882-2025
dated 27.03.2024 and 29.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2/State

Information Commission are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all
consequential directions issued pursuant to the aforesaid impugned orders
shall also stand quashed.
The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/31/2026
12:11:43 PM