1 2025:CGHC:4640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6244 of 2024 1 Kedar Singh Dhruve S/o Shri Ghasiram Aged About 50 Years Secretary Village Panchayat Dhangava R/o Village Andhiyarkhoh Janpad Panchayat Gaurella District - Gaurella Pendra - Marvahi (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat Department Mantralaya New Raipur (C.G.) 2 Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Commissioner Sector -19 North Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3 Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Gaurella Pendra Marvahi District - Gaurella Pendra Marvahi (C.G.) 4 Chief Executive Officer Cum 1st Appellate Authority Janpad Panchayat Gaurella District - Gaurella - Pendra - Marvahi (C.G.) 5 Avon Banjara Rti Activist R/o Village Kurrubhatha Naharpali Tahsil Kharsia District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. 2 For Respondent No. 2 Shri Shyam Sundar Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 27/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is questioning the order passed by Respondent No. 2 in the Second Appeal No. A/1179/2023/Raigarh, which is arising out of order passed in First Appeal by Respondent No. 4. The 2nd Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) has imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- with direction to recover the same from the salary of the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on account of non-providing information to the Respondent No. 5 who is complainant/information seeker. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Annexure P-4, it has been intimated to the State Information Commission (Respondent No.2) that the information sought by the information seeker (Respondent No.5) has already been provided and he is satisfied by the same and he has also requested to close the proceedings pending before them. Inspite of the fact brought to the notice of the State Information Commission (Respondent No.4), they have proceeded and passed the order and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and pleadings. 4. Perusal of Annexure P-4 shows that the information seeker (Respondent No. 5) has intimated the State Information Commission 3 under the Second Appeal that the information sought by him has already been supplied 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. 5 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 13.08.2024 (Annexure P- 1) is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti