1 2026:CGHC:20943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4500 of 2022 1 - Alok Tiwari S/o - Ram Awadh Tiwari Aged About 56 Years R/o - H-10, Vinayaka Vihar, Abhifits Gym, D.D.U. Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through - The Commissioner, Sector - 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Nitin Singhvi R/o Mig - 59, Sector - 01, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Simpi Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and set aside the order dated 16.08.2022 and communication letter dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure P/1), as the order, has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief. which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is presently serving as Deputy Conservator of Forest (JFM & Policy Analysis) at Aranya Bhavan, Raipur, and at the relevant point of time in January 2020 was officiating as Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Baloda Bazar; that during such period, respondent No. 2 submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information, to which the petitioner responded by a reasoned communication bearing letter No. 518 dated 11.02.2020, stating that the information sought was vague and not clearly specified; that being aggrieved by the said reply, respondent No. 2 preferred a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act on 3 03.03.2020 before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order, while granting liberty to respondent No. 2 to submit a fresh application with specific particulars; that thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (respondent No. 1), which, by the impugned order dated 16.08.2022, directed the petitioner to furnish the information within 30 days free of cost, further ordered recovery of expenses at the rate of Rs. 2 per page from the petitioner, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, and also directed initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner; that the said order is assailed as being in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, inasmuch as it was passed without affording any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering his reply; that the impugned order, being conclusive in nature and imposing penal consequences upon the petitioner without due process, is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the application filed under the Right to Information Act was vague and lacking in necessary particulars, the information sought could not be furnished, and accordingly a reasoned reply to that effect was communicated vide letter dated 11.02.2020; however, despite such clarification, the information seeker neither appeared before 4 the concerned authority to file a proper and specific application nor sought any assistance from the Public Information Officer to obtain the information in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law; it is further submitted that the said response of the petitioner was duly affirmed by the First Appellate Authority upon consideration of the appeal preferred by the information seeker, and thereafter a second appeal was filed before the State Information Commission; it is contended that the Second Appellate Authority, without appreciating the aforesaid factual and legal aspects and without recording any finding to the effect that the petitioner had deliberately or mala fide withheld the information, proceeded to hold that the information had not been supplied and that the provisions of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act were not attracted, and consequently directed furnishing of information along with imposition of penalty; it is also submitted that although an opportunity was purportedly granted to the petitioner in relation to imposition of penalty, the reply submitted by him was not duly considered, and the penalty was imposed mechanically, which is contrary to the settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Nitin Singhvi vs. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in WA No. 215/2020 on 12.6.2023. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the State Information 5 Commission, as the petitioner failed to furnish the information sought by the information seeker and incorrectly invoked the provisions of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act; it is contended that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, was under an obligation to assist the information seeker by calling him and facilitating the filing of a proper and specific application, which the petitioner failed to do; and therefore, in view of such lapse and non-compliance with the statutory duties, the imposition of penalty by the State Information Commission is justified and in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that, even if the application submitted by the information seeker was vague or not in accordance with the prescribed requirements, it was incumbent upon the Public Information Officer to call upon the applicant and provide necessary assistance for filing a proper and complete application so as to enable him to obtain the requisite information in accordance with law. She has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Nitin Singhvi vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPPIL No. 5/2018 on 12.3.2019. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the bare perusal of the record, it appears that the application which has been filed by the information seeker is vague and does not disclose the specific information sought, and accordingly, the Public Information Officer issued a memo to the concerned 6 information seeker stating that the जानकारी सूचन का अधिकारी अधिनिनयम 2005 का तहत सूत्यनित कारीत हुय अलाቕኍ का जानसूचन आवेदन म दिदय गय त री रीजिजास्ट्ቑ# ्ቑका सू ቚኔनि%त निकाय जान ቕኍ, िሗका'त( जानसूचन अधिकारी ቛኋरी का वेला यह लाख कारीत हुए निका अलाቕኍ का, सूमयवेधि म जानकारी ቚኔप्त कारीन सू वे.चिचत रीख गय निका चह गई जानकारी सूचन का अधिकारी अधिनिनयम 2005 का री 6 (2) का तहत निवेवेरीण नह2 दिदय जान का कारीण छायቚኔनित ቚኔदय निकाय जान ቚኔवेनिनत नह2 ह4 जाबनिका सूचन का अधिकारी अधिनिनयम 2005 का6 री 6 (2) म ቚኔवेनिनत ह4 निका " सूचन का चिलाए अन(री, कारीन वेला आवेदका सू सूचन का अन(री, कारीन का चिलाए निकासू कारीण का, य अन्य निकासू ्ቤሹኌ:तगत ब्य<री का,, चिसूवेय उसूका जा, उसूसू सू.का# कारीन का चिलाए आवेश्यका ह,, दन का6 अቌኋ नह2 का6 जाएग"; even if Section 6(2) is not applicable, it has been clearly communicated that the application lacks clarity regarding the specific information required to be furnished by the Public Information Officer, and once such intimation was given, it was incumbent upon the information seeker to approach the concerned authority and file an appropriate and specific application to seek the desired information; however, it appears that the information seeker was not genuinely interested in obtaining the information but was rather inclined towards pursuing appellate remedies, as is evident from the filing of the First Appeal and thereafter the Second Appeal; in such circumstances, where the application itself was vague and incapable of being acted upon, there arose no occasion for furnishing information, and the Second Appellate Authority ought to have afforded a proper opportunity to the petitioner to have the application clarified and thereafter to furnish 7 the information, if required; however, without considering these material aspects, the authority has erroneously concluded that the petitioner deliberately withheld the information and proceeded to impose penalty, which is not in accordance with law. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the concerned authority ought to have duly considered the provisions contained under Section 20 of the RTI Act, which specifically govern the imposition of penalty; it is well settled that penalty can be imposed only when the statutory conditions prescribed therein are clearly attracted, and unless a definite finding is recorded that the Public Information Officer has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive an application, failed to furnish information within the stipulated time, or has malafidely denied the request, no penalty can be levied; therefore, the State Information Commission cannot impose penalty in a casual or mechanical manner without satisfying the mandatory requirements of Section 20 and without recording cogent reasons to justify such imposition. 9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 as well as the consequential communication dated 05.09.2022 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat