Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/5129/2026 of NEELA GUPTA Vs STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER on 7 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5129 of 2026 1 - Neela Gupta D/o Late Sudarshan Prasad Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Shakti Chowk, Near B S N L Office, Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Chief
CGHC010392462026
2026:CGHC:43571
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5129 of 2026
1 - Neela Gupta D/o Late Sudarshan Prasad Gupta Aged About 43
Years R/o Shakti Chowk, Near B S N L Office, Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Chief Information Commissioner Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - First Appellate Public Information Authority Office Of Chief Medical
And
Health
Officer,
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3 - Public Information Officer Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 :
Mr. S.S.L. Tekchandani, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue mandamus directing the respondents to direct the Respondent No. 1 to decide the Second Appeal No. A/4238/2026/Bilaspur within 30-45 days which is given under Section 19(6)(1)(2) of Right to Information Act, 2005. 10.2 Any other relief may also be granted in the case as may deem fit in the Hon’ble Court as per the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred Second Appeal No. A/4238/2026/Bilaspur under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before respondent No. 1, which is still pending consideration. He further submits that despite the lapse of time, the said second appeal has not been decided. Therefore, he prays that an appropriate direction may be issued to respondent No. 1 to decide the pending second appeal within a stipulated period.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the second appeal preferred by the petitioner may be considered and decided by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law within a reasonable period, subject to the pendency of the matter and the applicable procedure.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed.
5. Having regard to the limited relief sought by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and decide Second Appeal No. A/4238/2026/Bilaspur, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE Madhurima