Pending RTI second appeals must be decided expeditiously, preferably within 45 days.

The petitioner’s grandfather was the recorded bhumi-swami of agricultural land in Villages Birra, Siladehi and Taldeveri, District Janjgir-Champa, which was acquired for a power project.

The petitioner submitted an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 8 October 2025 before the Public Information Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Land Acquisition Officer, Champa. No information was furnished within the period prescribed under Section 7(1), which expired on 7 November 2025.

The petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) on 10 November 2025. Although he appeared at the hearing, no effective adjudication was made on the failure to provide information.

The petitioner thereafter filed a second appeal/complaint before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission on 27 December 2025, bearing Online Registration No. 420251227008192.

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 6(3), concerning transfer of an RTI application to the appropriate public authority; Section 7(1), requiring disposal of an RTI request within the prescribed period; Section 19(1), providing for a first appeal; Section 19(6), prescribing the period for disposal of the first appeal; and Section 19(3), permitting a second appeal before the State Information Commission.

The governing procedural principle was that a statutory authority seized of a pending appeal or complaint must consider and decide it in accordance with law within a reasonable time; however, an order directing expeditious disposal does not amount to an adjudication on the merits.

The petitioner demonstrated that the RTI request had allegedly remained unanswered beyond the statutory period and that the first appeal had not resulted in an effective decision on the grievance.

The subsequent second appeal/complaint had also remained pending before the State Information Commission, with the online status showing that it was still under process.

Since the petitioner’s counsel limited the prayer to expeditious disposal, the High Court considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the information request, the validity of the transfer, or the legality of the first appellate authority’s order.

The Court therefore exercised its writ jurisdiction to secure consideration of the pending statutory proceeding, while expressly preserving the Commission’s independent authority to decide the matter in accordance with the RTI Act.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and that the Commission must decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation in the writ proceedings.

The petitioner was permitted to furnish a copy of the order and relevant documents to the Commission for compliance.