1 2025:CGHC:18385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3753 of 2022 1 - Dr. Priyanka Verma D/o Late G.P. Verma Aged About 35 Years Presently Posted As Joint Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Santosh Kumar Pradhan Kanuni Margdarshan Kendra, Koushilya Smriti, Second Floor, 2/85, Bairan Bazar, Fouwara Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal tekchandani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 17-05-2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief including the cost of the petition, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal Case No. A/360/2019, by which the State Information Commission has imposed penalty of Rs. 25000/- under Section 20 (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, against the petitioner. She further submits that respondent No. 4 3 has moved an application for sought information with respect to the District Level Monitering and Vigilance Committee constituted under Section 17 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-1989). She further submits that the petitioner was working as Public Information Officer, forwarded the matter to the AJAK Police Station, Balod in under Section 6 (3) (ii) of the Act, 2005 as the matter was closely connected with the AJAK Police Station. The AJAK Police Station vide its letter dated 24.08.2018 has informed the Collector that no such Committee has been constituted, however, the said letter was not brought to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner was totally unaware of the subsequent development as she was posted as Public Information Officer only for a short period. The information was supplied to respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 30.03.2020, however, the Commission without considering this fact and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner passed the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the order which has been impugned in this case dated 17.05.2022 has been passed in accordance with law. The petitioner has not furnished the information as sought by the information seeker, the respondent No. 4, namely, Santosh Kumar Pradhan and when the application was filed instead of giving the said information she has forward the matter to the concerned Police Station- AJAK Balod though she is required to seek information from the District 4 Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee. The application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has also not been decided within a period of 30 days as prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. When the information was sought from the concerned Police Station stating that they are not having knowledge of the Committee constituted. It has been found that the reply was not reasonable and as such under Section 20 (1) of the Act, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed to the petitioner which is not in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and also considered the Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. The information seeker has moved an application to the Public Information Officer regarding constitution of District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee dated 20.04.2012 while seeking the name, address and mobile number of the Committee Members and further the minutes of meeting from 01st January, 2016 to 30th June, 2018. 6. Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under:- “8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any ctitizen,- (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause 5 unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.” 7. Since the subject matter of the application was closely related to the jurisdiction of the AJAK Police Station, Balod, the original request for information was redirected under Section 6 (3) (ii) of the Act, 2005." 8. Section 6 (3) (ii) of the Act, 2005 reads as under:- 6. Request for obtaining information:- (1)…... (2) ...... (3) Where an application was made to a public authority requesting for an information, - (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) Subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made shall transfer application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and informed the applicant about such transfer." 9. In the present matter a District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee was constituted under Section 17 of the Scheduled 6 Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since the Moblie/ Phone number of the Member of the Committee has been sought which cannot be said to be relationship to any public activity. 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under:- “20. Penalties. (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information within the specified under sub- Section (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so howsoever, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before 7 any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.” 11. In the aforesaid provision contained under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005, it is quite vivid that a clear cut opinion has to be formed by the Commission at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal after hearing the person concerned and unless one of the three findings are recorded that the Public Information Officer has without any reasonable persistently failed to cause and receive an application for information or has not furnished within 30 days under Section 7(1) of the Act of 2005 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, the Commission shall not impose penalty upon the Public Information Officer. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14 has held that the State Information Commission has been vested with wide powers including Composition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees and the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. Section 20(2) of the Act of 2005, in paragraph 16 as under :- 8 “16. The State Information Commission has been vested with wide powers including imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees. Exercise of such power is bound to adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent. Thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. It will not be open to the Court to give them such liberal construction that it would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation to the principles of natural justice.” 13. In the present matter, the information has been forwarded to the concerned Police Officer as such it cannot be said that the information as sought by the petitioner was deliberately denied. Though before passing of order dated 17.05.2022, the information as sought by the Information Seeker has already been supplied vide memo dated 30.03.2022 by the Public Information Officer as such the grievance as raised by the Information Seeker has already been redressed. Further, there is nothing to show that the Public Information Officer has deliberately or intentionally not provided the information as sought by the petitioner. 14. In light of aforesaid discussion, there is nothing to show on record that the Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioner has deliberately not furnished the information and from perusal of the record it seems that due to bonafide mistake the petitioner has referred the matter to the AJAK Police Station, Balod vide memo 9 dated 13.08.2018. When the concerned Police Station has replied the aforesaid letter sent by the petitioner, it was not placed before her and as such further prompt action could not be taken. 15. From these averments, it seems that what ever has been done by the petitioner on her bonafide believes and there is no any malafide or deliberate action taken by the petitioner. 16. The Second Appellate authority has committed illegality while imposing penalty without considering this aspect that information as sought by respondent No. 4 has already been supplied and there is nothing on record to show that the Public Information Officer has deliberately not provide the information sought by the petitioner. 17. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.05.2022 is required to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat