Nashimuddin vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026

                                                        1




                                                                        2026:CGHC:18310
       Digitally                                                                  NAFR
       signed
YOGESH by
TIWARI
       YOGESH
       TIWARI
                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            WPC No. 1880 of 2026
                   Nashimuddin S/o- Azizuddin Aged About 47 Years R/o- Ward No. 29,
                   Vrinda Nagar, Camp 1, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.)
                                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                    versus
                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
                   Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)
                   2 - Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range, Raipur, District-Raipur
                   (C.G.)
                   3 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)
                   4 - Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Ashirwad Bhawan, Bayron
                   Bazar Road,chotapara, Janta Colony, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)
                   5 - Designated Officer, In The Office Of Superintendent Of Police,
                   Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)
                   6 - Competent Officer, In The Office Of Superintendent Of Police,
                   Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                            ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.04.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated

15.01.2026 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal

preferred by the petitioner has not been considered in accordance

with law, rendering the same arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner

has prayed for following relief(s):-

"10.1 This Hon'ble Court may be please to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 This Hon'ble court may be please to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any appropriate writ modifying the impugned order dated 15-01-26 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.2 passed in Appeal order no. 01/2025 to the extent of imposition of cost on respondent no. 5 and 6 and also to provide Lok Seva/service to the petitioner under the C.G Lok Sewa Gurantee Act, 2011 and Rules, 2011.

10.3 This Hon'ble court may be please to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any appropriate writ directing Desinated Officer/respondent no.5 to pay cost to the petitioner as prescribed under the the C.G Lok Sewa Gurantee Act, 2011 and Rules, 2011.

10.4 This Hon'ble Court may be please to issue any order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

10.5 This Hon'ble Court may be please to award cost of the petition to the petitioner.

10.6 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had

submitted complaints dated 30.08.2025 and 10.09.2025 before the

competent authorities seeking appropriate action, including

registration of FIR, in respect of a serious incident involving

alleged child marriage and coercion. Despite disclosing cognizable

offences and repeated representations, no effective action was

taken by the authorities. Consequently, the petitioner invoked the

provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011 (in

short 'Act, 2011') by submitting an application dated 12.09.2025

before the Designated Officer (respondent No. 5), who was

statutorily bound to provide the requested service/information

within 30 days.

3 It is further submitted that the Designated Officer failed to

discharge his statutory duty within the prescribed time limit,

compelling the petitioner to approach the Competent Officer

(respondent No. 6) by filing a complaint dated 25.10.2025 seeking

action against such default. However, even the Competent Officer

failed to decide the complaint within the stipulated period as

mandated under the Act, 2011. Left with no alternative, the

petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before respondent No. 2 on

01.12.2025, specifically highlighting the inaction and default on the

part of respondents No. 5 and 6.

4 Learned counsel submits that during the appellate proceedings,

respondent No. 5 (Designated Officer) categorically admitted that

the service/information sought by the petitioner was not provided

within the statutory period. Despite such clear admission and the

mandatory provisions under the Act, 2011 requiring imposition of

penalty and issuance of direction for providing service, the

appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance

with law. No penalty was imposed upon respondent No. 5, nor was

any direction issued for furnishing the requisite service to the

petitioner.

5 It is further contended that the appellate authority has also failed

to take any action against respondent No. 6 (Competent Officer),

who neglected to decide the petitioner's complaint within the

prescribed time. The impugned order dated 15.01.2026, therefore,

suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the object

and scheme of the Act, 2011, which mandates accountability of

public officials and time-bound delivery of services. Hence, the

impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside.

6 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the

submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contended

that the impugned order dated 15.01.2026 has been passed

strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok

Seva Guarantee Act, 2011 and after due consideration of the

material available on record. It is submitted that the appellate

authority has afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to all

concerned parties and has exercised its jurisdiction within the four

corners of law. It is further submitted that though there may have

been some delay on the part of the Designated Officer in providing

the information/service, the same was neither intentional nor

deliberate but occurred due to administrative and procedural

constraints. It is contended that the Act, 2011 does not mandate

imposition of penalty in every case of delay, and the competent

authority is vested with discretion to consider the facts and

circumstances before taking any punitive action.

7 Learned State counsel also submits that the Competent

Officer/respondent No. 6 had taken cognizance of the petitioner's

complaint and the matter was under consideration, and merely

because a formal order was not passed within the stipulated time,

it cannot be presumed that there was deliberate inaction

warranting penal consequences. It is argued that the authorities

have acted bonafide and in discharge of their official duties. It is

lastly submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any

substantial prejudice caused due to the alleged delay, and the writ

petition is an attempt to unnecessarily invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, no interference is called for

with the impugned order, and the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have

perused the material available on record.

9 It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant Section 4 of the

Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011, which reads as

under :-

"4. Liability to deliver Lok Sewa in stipulated time, imposition, recovery and payment of cost.-

(1) Every department shall designate the person(s) responsible for delivering Lok Sewa from the date of commencement of this Act, and the fact of such designation shall be displayed in some conspicuous part of the department for the information of general public.

(2) Every person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa referred to in sub-section (1) shall deliver such services in accordance with the notification under Section 3.

(3) Every application for Lok Sewa shall be acknowledged by the person responsible for delivering the service or by the department, as the case may be, and every applicant shall be entitled to obtain the status of his application in the manner as may be prescribed.

(4) Every person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa who fails to deliver such services within the stipulated time shall be liable to pay costs at the rate of one hundred rupees for each day during the period of delay, if any, subject to a maximum cost of one thousand rupees, which shall be recoverable from him towards payment

to the person applying for Lok Sewa in respect of failure to obtain such service:

Provided that, no costs shall be recovered from the person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa unless he has been served with a notice and has been accorded a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Competent Officer, in the manner as may be prescribed :

Provided further that, no costs shall be recoverable, where the application for such service is deficient in any manner and such deficiency has been indicated in the acknowledgment referred to in sub-section (3):

Provided also that, no costs shall be recoverable, where the delay in delivering such service is, in the opinion of the Competent Officer, owing to reasons beyond the control of the person responsible for delivering Lok Sewa.

(5) The manner of recovery of costs and payment to the applicant under sub-section (4) shall be as may be prescribed."

10 From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 4 of the

Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011, it clearly transpires

that a statutory obligation has been cast upon the designated

अधिकारी/person responsible to deliver the notified Lok Sewa within

the stipulated time, in accordance with the provisions of the Act,

2011. The Act further ensures accountability by mandating

acknowledgment of applications and providing the applicant a right

to track the status thereof. In case of failure to deliver the service

within the prescribed time, the officer concerned is rendered liable

to pay costs for the period of delay, subject to the conditions and

exceptions enumerated therein, including grant of opportunity of

hearing and exclusion of cases involving deficiency in application

or circumstances beyond control.

11 Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the petitioner has

primarily assailed the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the

appellate authority under the provisions of the Act, 2011 on the

ground that no penalty has been imposed upon the concerned

officers and no effective direction has been issued for providing

the service sought by the petitioner. From the record, it appears

that the appellate authority has afforded opportunity of hearing to

the parties and has taken note of the submissions as well as the

explanation offered by the concerned officers before passing the

impugned order. It is also apt to note that the provisos appended

to Section 4(4) of the Act, 2011 are required to be duly considered

before imposition of any penalty. However, it appears that the

prescribed authority, in exercise of its discretion, has failed to take

into account the said provisos while examining the case for

imposition of penalty.

12 It is well settled that the scope of interference under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India in such matters is limited, particularly

when the authority has exercised its discretion within the

framework of the statute. Merely because the petitioner is

dissatisfied with the outcome, it would not ipso facto warrant

interference unless the order is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or

suffering from patent illegality. In the present case, this Court does

not find any such infirmity in the impugned order.

13 So far as the contention regarding non-imposition of penalty is

concerned, the same falls within the discretionary domain of the

competent/appellate authority, which is required to assess the

facts and circumstances of each case. This Court is not inclined to

substitute its own view in place of that of the statutory authority in

absence of any manifest illegality or mala fide.

14 In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The

writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order

as to costs.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh