1 2026:CGHC:22502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3944 of 2021 Judgment Reserved On :02.04.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 13.05.2026. Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena S/o Amal Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ghanaghat, Thana And Tahsil Lormi , District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Chief Information Commissioner, Sector 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur 492002 Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat , Lormi , District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Nitin Singhvi R/o Mig 59, Sec 01, Shankar Nagar Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Jha appears on behalf of Shri Anand Shukla, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in four complaint cases instituted against him viz Complaint Case Nos.C/287/2019, C/288/2019, C/289/2019, C/290/2019. 2. By the impugned order dated 29.05.2021, a fine of Rs.25,000/- in respect AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.18 18:26:17 +0530 2 of each complaint cases has been imposed upon on the petitioner and it has been recommended to take disciplinary action against him on account of non furnishing of information by him within time limit as sought under Right to Information Act, 2005 by Respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 29.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Respondent No. 01 the State Information Commission,in the interest of justice. 10.2) That, Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 4. Case as projected by the petitioner is that he was Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Dongarigardh, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh and under Right to Information Act, 20051, petitioner was also the Public Information Officer of the said office. During his tenure as a Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat, Respondent No.3 filed an application seeking information under the RTI Act in respect of grant of Forest Rights lease within the jurisdiction of the panchayat and for that, he filed four different RTI applications dated 21.08.2018. Reliefs prayed for by Respondent No.3 in those four RTI applications are as under:- First Application :- A copy of the notice published by the Panchayat calling for the applications for objections relating to grant of forest rights leases under the Scheduled Tribes and Other 1 The RTI Act 3 Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Second Application :- A copy of the documents relating to constitution of Forest Rights Committee and documents relating to the selection of the President and the Secretary of the said committee under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Third Application :- A copy of list of objections sent to the Sub- District Level Committee relating to grant of forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Fourth Application :- A copy of all the Letters received by the Panchayat from the Collector, Tehsildar, Forest Department, ST & SC Department relating to/under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. 5. It is further pleaded that the aforesaid four applications were never received by the petitioner and there is no record of the same in office. Even also on going through the reliefs of the applications, it does not appear that the information sought by Respondent No.3 is meant for larger public interest which resulted in disproportionate diversion of the resources of the petitioner thereby caused obstruction to his day to day working. After a lapse of about 6 months, on 22.02.2019, four different complaints were filed under Section 18 (1) (c) in respect of each RTI application viz Complaint Case Nos.C/287/2019, C/288/2019, C/289/2019, C/290/2019 directly before the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act i.e. State Information Commission-Respondent No.1 alleging that the Public Information Officer has not provided requisite information as sought by the Respondent No.3 and as such, necessary order in accordance with law is required to be passed. As such, Respondent No.3 directly approached the 4 second appellate authority without availing himself of the alternative remedy available to him to file first appeal before the first appellate authority, however, the second appellate authority i.e. State Information Commission has entertained the said appeal and without their being any appropriate appreciation of provisions of the RTI Act, has allowed the appeal and held that the information sought by Respondent No.3 has not been furnished within time by the petitioner and as such, he is required to be punished with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each in four complaints. It is noteworthy to mention that contrary to the established procedure, the Respondent No 01 the State Information Commission, took cognizance of the complaint of the Respondent No.3 invoking the powers conferred to it, under section 18 of the RTI Act relating to inquiry on 04.02.2021 and has made an order under which it has been directed that, a notice to the Petitioner (PIO) to be served through the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, calling upon him to remain present on the next hearing date with reply supported by relevant documents on 29.05.2021. Because the hearing would to be conducted through video conferencing, for the purpose of inquiry into the matter, the Petitioner (PIO) was directed to remain present in the video conferencing room in the NIC of the Collector office of the District Mungeli. Also, in the same order, the Commission directed to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner (PIO) for the delay in deliverance of the information in the prescribed time. On 29.05.2021, as directed to him, the Petitioner -(PIO) made his presence at the NIC Video 5 Conferencing Room of the Collector Office and due to non-availability of the Internet/Link Failure, the Petitioner - PIO could not appear before the Respondent No. 01 State Information Commission and the Petitioner (PIO) after signing on the Register returned to his work. Also, the Petitioner conveyed this incident to the Respondent No 2-CEO of the Janpad Panchayat Lormi, who is the officer through which the petitioner was served with the notice for such appearance. Hence, the Petitioner - (PIO) could not mark his appearance before the Respondent No 01 the State Information Commission because of a bonafide reason. It is noteworthy to mention here that no just and proper inquiry has been done as the Petitioner was not given a fair chance to present his side before the inquiring officer and the Respondent No 01 State Information Commission, passed the orders ex-parte and fined 25,000 in each complaint matter. ₹ Also, the said Commission made an unjust recommendation to take appropriate disciplinary actions against the Petitioner – (PIO). In the complaint moved by the Respondent No 03, it was mentioned that the information sought by him is of great public importance and alleged that he didn't get the information on time, however, he did not take any appropriate steps for gathering the information on time and after a deliberate elapse of about six months, he preferred the Complaint. The malice in the mind of the Respondent No. 03 can be noticed by the fact that he sought information by preferring four different RTI applications with respect to single subject matter which hampered the smooth functioning of the office 6 of the petitioner. The Petitioner, as submitted earlier, neither received any RTI Applications nor it was there in the office records and as soon as he was served with the notice of the Commission, the information sought by the Respondent No. 03 was conveyed to him on 17.05.2021 and 24.05.2021. The Respondent No 1 the State Information Commission, without giving any due opportunity of hearing and without considering the true intent of prevailing provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and without looking at the malice in the mind of the Respondent No. 03, passed the impugned order which is apparently illegal, bad in law and liable to be set aside. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Second Appeal filed before the State Information Commission by the Respondent No.3 itself is not maintainable as Respondent No.3 without availing himself of the remedy of the First Appeal, directly filed the Second Appeal. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in the matter of Goa Cricket Association vs. State of Goa in Writ Petition No.739 of 2010 decided on 22.03.2013 by the High Court of Bombay at Goa {2013 (4) MhLj 453}, wherein it has been held that “Section 18 of the Act confers jurisdiction on the State Information Commission to entertain complaints in cases which do not include the case of refusal by the public authority to disclose the information. The remedy available to the complainant, in such a case, therefore, is by way of First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority.” 7 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a well established principle of law that the State Information Commission does not ordinarily entertain complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act unless the statutory remedy available under Section 19 has first been exhausted and would further place reliance in the matter of Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Rui Ferreira and Ors in W.P. Nos.132 and 307 of 2011 (2011 (5) MhLj 765) decided on 28.07.2011 by the High Court of Bombay at Goa wherein at paragraph 8 following has been held:- “8…….This suggests that it is not intention of the parliament to permit parties who seek information to by-pass the appeals provided by the Act where the request has been made after inquiry, as in the present case. Further, the opening words of the section clearly have the effect of requiring a party seeking of information to make the request in accordance with section 6; the disposal of the request in accordance with section 7 and filing of an appeal in accordance with section 19 where a person is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, In the present case, respondent No. 1 must be considered to be a person aggrieved by the decision of the PIO within the meaning of section 19 of the Act. It was therefore, not permissible for the State Information Commission to entertain the complaint made by respondent No. 1 under section 18 of the Act.” 8. Secondly, nothing on record suggests that the information sought by Respondent No.3 as claimed by him is for larger public interest, as such, it appears that the Respondent No.3 has not come with clean hands. Further, 8 the information which has been sought by the Respondent No.3 has already been given to him, as such, his grievance has already been redressed and further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has intentionally acted in a mala fide manner and that he deliberately did not furnish the information sought from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not receive the RTI applications seeking information of the Respondent No.3 within time, therefore, information could not be supplied to Respondent No.3. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State Information Commission has illegally imposed the fine amount upon the petitioner as the petitioner is not even a least bit responsible for the delay caused in furnishing the information sought by Respondent No.3. The impugned order imposing the said fine is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act inasmuch as no effective and reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted before fastening the civil consequences upon the petitioner. 10.In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance in the order dated 04.08.17 passed in the matter of Shamik Nag vs. The Public Information Officer Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors in WPC No.8913 of 2016 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi wherein at paragraph 9 it has been held as under:- “9. The opening line of Section 20(1) of the Act clearly indicates that CIC/SIC may form an opinion warranting imposition of penalty "at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal". This must be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Act. 9 Thus, if the CIC/SIC is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to enquire into into the matter whether pursuant to a separate complaint filed under Section 18(1) of the Act or in proceedings relating to appeal under the under the Act (under Section 19(3) of the Act), it would conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the Act and give a reasonable opportunity to the CPIO/SPIO to be heard before imposing any penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. In cases where the question of imposing penalty arises during the course of proceedings relating to an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, the CIC would have the jurisdiction to also direct dísclosure of information in addition to considering the question whether any penalty ought to be imposed on the CPIO/SPIO…...” 11.Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had every intention to participate in the proceedings and, infact, he appeared through video conferencing mode but due to technical failure and because of the connection disruption, the petitioner could not effectively join and assist the commission. However, no adjournment, fresh notice or meaningful opportunity was granted to the petitioner thereafter and the fine was imposed ex parte upon him in violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the first proviso of section 20(1) expressly mandates that a State Public Information Officer must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him. Therefore, the statutory requirement is not an empty formality and any order passed without such hearing is vitiated. Under section 21 of the RTI Act, the burden lies on the Public Information Officer to show that he acted responsibly and diligently, however, such burden can be discharged only when a real opportunity is offered to place his explanation on record. Denial of hearing itself prevents the statutory defence from being considered. 10 12.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is further unsustainable because it does not properly appreciate the distinction between a deliberate refusal and delay caused by the circumstances beyond control, including technical failure in virtual hearing proceedings. In absence of fair chance to explain those circumstances, the finding of default is unsound. Respondent No.01- State Information Commission, before passing the impugned order ought to have looked into the reason as to why the petitioner could not appear before the Commission which was solely due to technical failure in the Collector’s office. 13.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.05.2021 as directed the Petitioner (PIO), he made his presence at the NIC Video Conferencing Room of the Collector’s Office, however, due to non-availability of the Internet / Link Failure, the Petitioner (PIO) could not appear before the Respondent No. 01 State Information Commission. The Petitioner (PIO) did put his signature on the Register and returned to his work. Hence, non appearance before the State Information Commission was due to bona fide reasons. Also, the Petitioner conveyed this incident to the Respondent No 02, who is the Officer through which he received the notice for such appearance. 14.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the earlier RTI applications which the Respondent No.3 claims that he had filed, did not find its place in the office record, as such, only upon receiving subsequent RTI 11 applications, the petitioner has provided the information. Learned counsel submits that no proper reasons have been assigned by the State Information Commission on the basis of which it can be held that the petitioner is any how responsible for non furnishing of information sought by Respondent No.3. Even otherwise also, for one and the same subject matter, four RTI applications have been filed which in itself goes to suggest that only in order to harass the petitioner, the said applications were filed though the same do not find their place in the official record. Unless and until, it comes on evidence that the petitioner has acted malafidely in supplying the information, the penalty imposed on him is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 15.Learned counsel for Respondent No.1- Chhattisgarh State Information Commission submits that the Commission acted strictly within the jurisdiction conferred under Section 18 (1) (c) read with Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. The complaints were maintainable even without exhaustion of the remedy under Section 19 in view of complete inaction on the part of petitioner - PIO and the complainant’s inability to identify the First Appellate Authority. He submits that the petitioner was afforded full and reasonable opportunity of hearing, including appearance through video conferencing and submission of reply to the showcause notice which failed to do so. The plea of “internet/link failure” is an afterthought and remains unsubstantiated by any evidence. The imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- is justified in light of prolonged inaction exceeding six months. 12 As such, the impugned orders are well reasoned orders and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice. 16.Learned counsel for Respondent No.3- information seeker has supported the impugned order stating that it has rightly been passed since the petitioner showed reckless behaviour in discharge on this duties. 17.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully. 18.First and foremost, it would be appropriate to quote relevant section of the RTI Act, 2005 i.e. Sections 8, 10, 11, 18 (1) (c), 19 (1) and 20 (1), which reads as under:- 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b)information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any Court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of Court; (c)information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (e)information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (f)information received in confidence from foreign Government; 13 (g)information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h)information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i)cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (3)Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub- section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. xxx 14 10. Severability. (1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information. (2) Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub- section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing (a)that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided; (b)the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based; (c)the name and designation of the person giving the decision; (d)the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit; and (e)his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access. 11. 11. Third party information. (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written 15 notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub- section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. (4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision. xxx 18. Powers and functions of Commission. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person, xxx (c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit 16 specified under this Act;” 19. Appeal. (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 20. Penalties. 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 or has not furnished information within the time 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 the subject of the request or obstructed in any 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 however, 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 any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted 17 reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. 19.The core issues which arise for consideration in the present petition are: (i) Whether the complaint filed directly before the State Information Commission under Section 18(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 without availing the remedy of first appeal under Section 19(1) was maintainable? (ii) Whether the imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- in each complaint under Section 20(1) of the Act was legally sustainable? (iii) Whether the principles of natural justice were complied with before passing the impugned order? 20. From the record, it is evident that Respondent No.3, instead of filing a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 19(1) of the Act, directly approached the State Information Commission by filing complaints under Section 18(1)(c) alleging non-supply of information within the prescribed time. Section 18 empowers the Commission to receive and inquire into complaints in certain contingencies. However, the statutory scheme of the Act makes a clear distinction between: • A complaint under Section 18, and • An appeal under Section 19. 21.Section 19 provides a complete appellate mechanism where a person aggrieved by non-supply of information or by a decision of the Public Information Officer must first approach the First Appellate Authority and thereafter, if still aggrieved, approach the Commission in second appeal. 18 22. The High Court of Bombay at Goa in Goa Cricket Association (supra) has clearly held that Section 18 does not ordinarily contemplate adjudication of disputes relating to refusal of information when a statutory appellate remedy under Section 19 exists. Similarly, in Rui Ferreira (supra), it has been observed that a complainant cannot bypass the statutory appeal mechanism and directly invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 18 when he is essentially aggrieved by non- supply of information. 23.In the present case, the grievance of Respondent No.3 was non-supply of information within time. Such grievance squarely falls within the ambit of Section 19 and ought to have been first agitated before the First Appellate Authority. Entertaining the complaint directly under Section 18, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, was therefore legally questionable. 24. Further, the petitioner has consistently taken a specific plea that the four RTI applications allegedly dated 21.08.2018 were never received in his office and do not find place in the official records. No documentary material has been produced to conclusively establish acknowledged receipt of the applications by the office of the petitioner. 25. It is settled that before fastening liability under Section 20(1), the Commission must record a clear finding that the Public Information Officer has without reasonable cause refused to receive the application or not furnished information within the specified time; or malafidely denied the request; or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. 19 26.In the present case, there is no categorical finding supported by evidence that the petitioner had in fact received the applications and thereafter deliberately withheld the information. In absence of proof of receipt, the foundation for imposition of penalty becomes doubtful. It cannot be safely concluded that the petitioner was guilty of deliberate inaction. 27.Section 20(1) provides for imposition of penalty only when the Commission is satisfied that the Public Information Officer acted without reasonable cause or malafidely. 28. The proviso to Section 20(1) mandates that the Public Information Officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed. This requirement is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary penal action. The Delhi High Court in Shamik Nag (surpa) has clarified that penalty proceedings require a proper inquiry and meaningful opportunity to the PIO to explain the circumstances. 29. In the present matter, though notice was issued and the hearing was to be conducted through video conferencing, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that he physically appeared at the NIC centre in the Collector’s office but due to internet/link failure he could not join the proceedings. There is no material on record to show that the Commission verified this aspect or afforded another opportunity to the petitioner before proceeding ex parte. No inquiry appears to have been conducted to ascertain whether the failure to join the hearing was deliberate or due to technical reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The burden under Section 20 lies upon 20 the PIO to show reasonable cause. However, such burden can be discharged only when a genuine and effective opportunity is granted. If the opportunity itself is illusory or frustrated due to technical reasons, penal consequences cannot be justified. 30. Moreover, as regards the conduct of Respondent No.3. It seems that Respondent No.3 is a habitual information seeker. It is also noticeable from the record that four separate RTI applications were filed on the same date and bombarded on the PIO seeking information substantially connected with the same subject matter. The information which has been sought by the Respondent No.3 is not having any nexus with being of utmost public importance. Though filing multiple applications is not per se illegal, the surrounding circumstances indicate that the applications were structured in a manner that fragmented a single subject into four proceedings. Further, Respondent No.3 waited for about six months before approaching the Commission and did not avail the statutory remedy of first appeal. 31.The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a beneficial legislation enacted to promote transparency and accountability in public administration. However, the penal provisions contained therein are intended to ensure compliance and not to operate as instruments of punishment in cases where reasonable explanation exists. The object of the Act is to advance transparency while ensuring fair administrative functioning. Penal provisions must therefore be invoked cautiously and only when statutory ingredients are clearly satisfied. 21 32. In view of the foregoing discussion and overall consideration of the attending facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the complaint was entertained without exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy and there is no conclusive finding that the RTI applications were duly received by the petitioner, further no proper inquiry was conducted before imposing penalty and reasonable opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 was not meaningfully afforded. 33.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.05.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Complaint Case Nos. C/287/2019, C/288/2019, C/289/2019 and C/290/2019 cannot be sustained in law which deserves to be and are accordingly hereby quashed/set aside. 34.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 35.If any amount has been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 02.04.2026 13.05.2026 ------ 18.05.2026