1 CGHC010368472023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4836 of 2023 Firan Lal Raj S/o Kanhaiyalal Raj Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Public Information Officer Cum Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Podikala, Block Bamnhidih, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bamnhidih, Dist. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 4 - Sharad Dewangan Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier School, Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Chhattisgarh State Information Commission : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, PL For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08.09.2026 1. This petition is filed against the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No.A/2096/2020/Raigarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat- Podikala at the relevant time when respondent No. 4 preferred an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTI Act"). The said application was addressed to the Public Information Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block- Bamnhidih. Under the aforementioned application, respondent No. 4 sought information regarding the Grant Register (Anudan Register) prepared and maintained by the Gram Panchayat for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. As per the order sheets of the State Information Commission, the petitioner initially could not supply the information sought by respondent No. 4. Therefore, respondent No. 4 preferred a First Appeal before respondent No. 3. Upon the passing of the order by respondent No. 3 (First Appellate Authority), the petitioner duly supplied the requisite information for the relevant years to respondent No. 4. Notwithstanding the fact that the required information had already been furnished, respondent No. 4 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission after an inordinate and 3 unexplained delay. Thereafter, the State Information Commission issued notice to the petitioner. However, while passing the impugned order dated 02.06.2023, the State Information Commission failed to take cogent notice of the material fact that the information sought had already been supplied to respondent No. 4. Furthermore, the Commission proceeded to impose a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act without condoning the threshold delay in filing the Second Appeal and without entering into the merits or recording any finding of mala fide intent against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in complete disregard of the statutory procedure mandated under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”), the impugned penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner without recording any finding of mala fide intent on the part of the Public Information Officer. He submits that prior to levying any penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the State Information Commission is required to record a categorical finding that the failure to supply information was attributable to a deliberate, conscious and mala fide act of the Public information Officer. In the absence of such explicit finding, no penalty can be sustained in law. In support of these contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment dated 12.6.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.215/2020 as well as the recent order dated 10.08.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No. 5304/2026. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-State Information Commission submits that the conduct of the Public Information Officer demonstrably reveals a deliberate and conscious failure to supply the relevant documents sought by the information seeker. He contends that such mala fide intent is plainly discernible from the fact of the record itself. Hence, the omission to record an explicit or formal finding to that effect in the impugned order does not vitiate the proceedings nor does it warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the imposition of penalty or a recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate and mala fide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a finding is recorded in the order supported by cogent reasons, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law. 7. This Court cannot override the statutory mandates contained in the RTI Act, 2005. Where the statute specifically prescribes a pre- condition for imposition of penalty, any mere presumption or inference drawn by the State Information Commission without a recorded finding is irrelevant and impermissible. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no reasons or findings have been recorded by the State 5 Information Commission to establish that the information was withheld owing to any mala fide intent, deliberate delay or ill motive on the part of the Public Information Officer. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 02.06.2023, whereby a penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, is hereby set aside. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL