1 2025:CGHC:36713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3915 of 2022 Naresh Kumar Patel S/o Shri R.C. Patel Aged About 50 Years Occupation Service, Working As Inspector In The Department Of Police, Presently Posted As Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, R/o Police Line, Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Gulab Chand Soni R/o Soni Jewellers, Jawahar Chowk, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sunderlal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: 2 “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Commission for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash / set aside the order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 in Complaint Case No.C/1299/2020 Durg (Shri Gulab Chand Soni v. Public Information Officer and others). 10.3. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent No.1/Commission on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No.2/complainant has punished the petitioner with fine of Rs7,750/- and also ordered for recovery of fine from his salary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Police Officer, he was posted as ‘Station House Officer’ at Police Station -Mohan Nagar, Durg. The impugned order was received by the petitioner with covering memo dated 16.06.2022. The complainant had made several applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking information under the said 3 Act. Said applications were sent through the post under Sections 5 & 6(1) of the RTI Act and there are twelve applications made by the complainant against the petitioner only to harass him and on account of personal grudge against the petitioner. The petitioner’s office had duly informed the complainant on 02.12.2019 and, thereafter on 14.12.2019 that the information sought could not be provided under the Act and also informed for available remedy under Section 19 of the RTI Act, however, instead of filing an appeal as per the procedure under the RTI Act, the complainant directly filed a complaint before respondent No.1/Commission, which was entertained without jurisdiction. The consequent imposition of penalty and the order for its recovery from the petitioner’s salary is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the scheme of the RTI Act, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner, in his capacity as the designated Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005, was under a statutory obligation to provide information as sought in the RTI application. The information sought pertaining to public records regarding government vehicles, including their allotment, usage, and fuel consumption, which are matters of public interest and cannot be treated as exempt from disclosure in a blanket manner. The petitioner failed to take timely and effective steps to furnish the information or to communicate a proper justification as mandated 4 under the Act. The mere fact that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave does not absolve him of his statutory responsibilities as the PIO, particularly when no alternate arrangement or delegation of duties has been shown to exist. As regards the petitioner’s contention that the respondent/complainant ought to have preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, it is submitted that Section 18 of the RTI Act provides an independent and concurrent remedy to a citizen who has been denied access to information, and the respondent was well within his rights to approach the State Information Commission directly under that provision. The penalty imposed by the Commission under Section 20 of the RTI Act was after due consideration of the facts and willful refusal/failure of the petitioner to discharge his duties, which is neither arbitrary nor unjustified, and is in line with the objective of ensuring accountability and transparency under the RTI regime. Therefore, the present writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents appended to the writ petition. 6. Perusal of impugned order including the material available on record would show that imposition of penalty upon the petitioner solely on the basis of an alleged denial in furnishing information. There is no material on record to demonstrate any malafide intention or deliberate misconduct on the part of the petitioner in 5 withholding the information sought by the information seeker. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties, material/evidence available on record, further the fact that petitioner’s office had duly informed the complainant/respondent No.2 through replies dated 02.12.2019 and 14.12.2019, citing valid statutory grounds for non-disclosure as well as about the available remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, which the respondent/complainant chose not to avail, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any element of intentional default, the impugned order imposing penalty upon the petitioner is stigmatic and prejudicial to his service career, and is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-