DEVASHISH RAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010028602023 2026:CGHC:38380
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 652 of 2023
1 - Devashish Rai S/o Dinbandhu Rai Aged About 45 Years Resident Of
Pakhanjur, New Market Ward No. 15, Ambedkar Ward, Post Office
Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Civil
Supplies Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The State Information Commission Sector 19, North Block, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - The First Appellate Authority And Assistant Food Officer District
North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Public Information Officer Government Fair Price Shop,
Jayshrinagar, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)

2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
31/08/2026
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
issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the order
dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased
to direct the respondent no. 4 to supply the information
sought by the petitioner as per order of first appellate
authority dated 23.10.2021.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1
is the State and respondents No. 2 to 4 are instrumentalities of the
State and, therefore, fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of
this Court. It is further submitted that on 05.07.2021, the petitioner
submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005
before the Public Information Officer, seeking certain documents,
including the cash book for the period from 01.03.2018 to
01.03.2021 and the expenditure vouchers pertaining to
Government Fair Price Shop, Jayshrinagar, Tahsil Pakhanjur,
District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.). As the information sought was
not supplied by respondent No. 4, the petitioner preferred a first

3
appeal before respondent No. 3, the First Appellate Authority. Vide
order dated 23.10.2021, respondent No. 3 directed respondent
No. 4 to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within one
week, without charging any cost. However, despite the aforesaid
direction, respondent No. 4 failed to furnish the requisite
information, compelling the petitioner to prefer a second appeal
before respondent No. 2. Learned counsel further submits that
respondent No. 2, vide the impugned order dated 14.09.2022,
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice, passed an ex
parte order setting aside the order dated 23.10.2021 on the
ground that the cash book was not maintained by the Government
Fair Price Shop. It is contended that the said finding is factually
incorrect, as the cash book is, in fact, maintained by Government
Fair Price Shop, Jayshrinagar, and, therefore, the impugned order
is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the material available on record and
unsustainable in law. Learned counsel thus submits that the
impugned order dated 14.09.2022 deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has
opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the
impugned order has been passed by the competent authority after
due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and
does not warrant any interference by this Court.

4
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
carefully perused the pleadings, documents and other material
available on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, further,
taking into consideration the fact that the concerned authorities
have passed a reasoned and speaking order upon due
consideration of the matter, this Court is of the considered view
that no ground is made out warranting interference with the
impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 2.
The findings recorded therein do not suffer from any apparent
illegality, perversity or infirmity so as to call for interference in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat