1 2026:CGHC:19969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1449 of 2022 Madan Mohan Kharwar S/o Late Bageshwar Prasad Kharwar, Aged About 60 Years Presented Posted And Working As Assistant Enginee (E.S.) And Assistant Electrical Inspector, Sub Division Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - First Appellate Officer, Superintending Engineer (E.S.) And Chief Electrical Inspector, Chhattisgarh Government, B-Block Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Sunil Channawar, R/o. Sae Corporation, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sunderlal Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.04.2026 2 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “(10) RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:- 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is challenging the order dated 27-12-2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1, whereby second appeal filed by respondent No.3 has been allowed and the petitioner, who was the Information Officer, was directed to supply the information as sought for by respondent No.3 to his registered address within ‘30 days’ and also directed to return the money (i.e. Rs.5040/-) deposited by respondent No.3 by the cheque. Learned Counsel further contended that the petitioner bonafidely sought for repeated instruction from the higher authorities, there is no any mala fide intention of petitioner in not providing the information as sought for by respondent No.3. The State was directed to recover the amount of loss incurred by the department cause of supplying the information free of cost to respondent No.3 from the petitioner; Respondent No.1 further imposed the penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner. Learned Counsel further contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before imposition 3 of penalty as envisaged under Section 20 of Right to Information Act, 2005. As of now the petitioner has retired from the service and the information as sought for has already received by respondent No.3. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer/relief. 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the the petitioner and supports the order of imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 5. Considering facts of the case, nature of reliefs, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly that petitioner bonafidely sought for repeated instruction from the higher authorities, there is no any mala fide intention of petitioner in not providing the information as sought for by respondent No.3 and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before imposition of penalty as envisaged under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, further considering that as of now the petitioner has retired from the service and the information as sought for has already received by respondent No.3, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner seems to be not in accordance with law, as such, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be set-aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. 4 7. The instant petition stands disposed of. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.