1 2025:CGHC:42002 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4446 of 2025 1 - Shyamlal Rathia S/o Shri Kurso Ram Rathia Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Panchayat Bhengari, Janpad Panchayat Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Second Appellate Authority Cum State Information Commission (Under The Rti Act, 2005), State Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The First Appellate Authority (Under The Rti Act, 2005), Cum Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Charghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Evan Banjara R/o Kurrubhata, Naharpali, Tahsil Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Rti Activiest And Pres Reporter) ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Bhakta along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L For respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/08/2025 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.23 12:38:09 +0530 2 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2024, (which has been communicated by the Respondent No.05 vide communication letter Dated 25.11.2024), passed in Second Appeal No. A/1263/2023/Raigarh by the Respondent No.04. Copies of the order dated 04.09.2024 and communication letter dated 25.11.2024 are filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1), arising out of the order dated 23.09.2022 (ANNEXURE P-2) passed in First Appeal No. 65/22.09.2022, by the Respondent No.05, whereby the Petitioner was imposed with fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Which is recoverable from the salary of Petitioner) U/s. 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on account of non-providing information to the Respondent No.06, who is complainant, made an application on 05.07.2022 to supply information regarding maintenance of stock register since 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2020 of Gram Panchayat Nawaparatenda, impugned order has been passed without providing any fair opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on bare perusal of paragraph 3 of the order of the First Appellate Authority, it is crystal clear that the application made by the respondent No. 6 under the RTI dated 02.07.2022 has never been received, despite that the petitioner has already supplied requisite information to the information seeker (respondent No. 6) and he was satisfied with the information, which reflect from his letter dated 26.10.2023, therefore, no any occasion is arise to impose cost of Rs. 25000/- against the petitioner and the same is liable to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that firstly there is delay 3 in providing the information. Secondly, the first Appellate Authority asked the petitioner to provide the information, even then the petitioner has provided the information to the respondent No. 6 when the second appeal has been filed. He further submits that whatever the penalty has been imposed that is on the basis of delay 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of the Annexure P/4 dated 26.10.2023, it transpires the fact that the respondent No. 6 wrote a letter to the Second Appellate Authority stating therein that 7. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Information seeker (respondent No. 6) has intimated the State Information Commissioner under the Second Appeal that the information sought by him, has already been provided and he is satisfied with the same and also requested the authorities to close the proceedings pending before them. As the information sought by respondent No. 6 has already been provided and he is satisfied with the same, the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is not sustainable in the facts of the case. Considering the same, the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti