1 2025:CGHC:839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 28 of 2025 1 Lochan Patel S/o Shri Hemlal Patel Aged About 49 Years Occupation- Service, Secretary Gram Panchayat Chimtapani Cum Public Information Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Presently Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tenda, Janpad Panchayat- Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District 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 District 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 Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 6 Evan Banjara R/o Kurrubhata, Naharpali, Tahsil Kharsia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Rti Activiest And Pres Reporter) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri A.N. Bhakta & Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 Shri Shyam Sundar Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 07/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is questioning the order passed by Respondent No. 4 in the Second Appeal No. A/1264/2023/Raigarh, which is arising out of order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed in First Appeal No. 64/22.09.2022 by Respondent No. 5. The First Appellate Authority cum Chief Executive Officer (Respondent No. 5) 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. 6 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.4) that the information sought by the information seeker (Respondent No.6) 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 3 Information Commission (Respondent No.4), they have proceeded and passed the order and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 submits that the document placed before this court i.e. Annexure P-4 has never been placed before State Information Commission and there was no occasion for respondent No. 4 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. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-4 shows that the information seeker (Respondent No. 6 ) 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. 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. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti