1 2025:CGHC:1966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6240 of 2024 1 - Smt. Kiran Rathore W/o Shri Milan Singh Rathore, Aged About 50 Years Secretary Village Panchayat Lalati, R/o Village- Bhadora, Janpad Panchayat, Gaurellla, 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, Jila Panchayat, Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi, District-Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Cum 1st Appellant 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) : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Agrawal, PL For Respondent No. 2. : Mr. Shyam Sundar Tekchandani, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.14 11:27:08 +0530 2 13/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 13/08/2024 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, with a further prayer to quash letter dated 22/11/2024, whereby recovery proceedings initiated against him. 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 informant seeker (respondent No.5) has already been provided and he is satisfied by the same and he has also requested to close the proceeding pending before them. In spite of the fact brought to the notice of the state Information Commission (Respondent No.2), they have have proceeded and passed the order and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the document placed before this Court i.e. Annexure-P/4 has never been placed before the State Information Commission and there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to appreciate the same. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is just and proper. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and pleadings. 3 5. Perusal of Annexure-P/4 shows that information seeker (respondent No.5) has intimated the State Information Commission 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 C omission is not sustainable in the facts of the case. Considering the same, the impugned order dated 13/08/2024 (Annexure-p/1) is quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul