1 2026:CGHC:23736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 288 of 2023 1 - R. B. Tiwari S/o Late Shri S. S. Tiwari Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Joint Director And (Deemed Public Information Officer), Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, Present Residence- F/22, Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner Through- Secretary, Sector-19 North Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appellate Authority Directorate Of Employment And Training, Training Section, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tehsil And District- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Public Information Officer Directorate Of Employment- And Training, Training Section, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chandrika Prasad Patel Geetanjali City Phase 2, Quarter No. 299, Behind Secl, Bahtarai Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan,Advocate For State :- Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 :- Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.06.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Second Appeal No. A/2124/2021/Bilaspur, whereby a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The impugned order has been passed without proper appreciation of the facts, records and explanation submitted by the petitioner and is therefore arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the Second Appeal No.- A/2124/2021/Bilaspur, Chandrika Prasad Patel Vs First Appellate Authority and another Directorate of 3 Employment And Training, Training Section, Mantralay,Indravati Bhawan,Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tehsil and District- Raipur (C.G.) 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to quash/setting aside the impugned order dated 20/10/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.-01) passed in Second Appeal No.- A/2124/2021/Bilaspur, Chandrika Prasad Patel Vs First Appellate Authority and another (Annexure P/01) in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent No. 5 submitted an application dated 17.07.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking a certified copy of an alleged investigation report referred to in a newspaper publication dated 04.04.2021 concerning recruitment of ITI Training Officers. The application did not specify the exact document sought and merely enclosed a newspaper cutting. Before expiry of the statutory period prescribed under the RTI Act, the respondent No. 5 preferred a first appeal. During the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner, who was functioning as Deemed Public 4 Information Officer, made efforts to identify the document referred to in the application and thereafter traced the records having the closest nexus with the information sought. Consequently, relevant documents comprising three pages were forwarded to the Public Information Officer for supply to the applicant. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 preferred a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation before the Commission pointing out that the information sought was not specifically identifiable from the RTI application and that bona fide efforts had been made to locate and furnish the nearest available records. However, without duly considering the explanation and material placed on record, the Commission passed the impugned order dated 20.10.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.), the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply explaining that the delay, if any, in furnishing the information sought by the information seeker was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred on account of a bona fide mistake and difficulty in identifying the exact document sought. It was further pointed out that the information available on record had subsequently been supplied to the applicant and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserved to be 5 dropped. Learned counsel further submits that although the petitioner's explanation was available on record, no effective opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, was afforded to the petitioner before imposition of the penalty. The petitioner, who was functioning as a deemed Public Information Officer, was never granted an adequate opportunity to establish that he had acted reasonably and diligently and that there existed sufficient cause for the alleged delay. It is contended that compliance with the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act is mandatory and the penalty could not have been imposed without first providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the impugned order imposing penalty has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory statutory requirement contained in Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission submits that the petitioner was duly served with a show cause notice by the Commission and, in response thereto, had appeared before the Commission by filing a detailed reply/explanation. It is therefore contended that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings and was afforded an opportunity to place his defence on record. Learned counsel further submits that once the petitioner had been issued notice and had availed the opportunity by submitting his reply before the State Information Commission, 6 the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing stood duly satisfied. Merely because no separate or further notice was issued prior to passing of the impugned order would not vitiate the proceedings. It is thus argued that the petitioner cannot contend that the principles of natural justice were violated, inasmuch as he had participated in the proceedings and his explanation was considered by the Commission before passing the order imposing penalty. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 submits that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is legal, proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is contended that although the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was eventually supplied to Respondent No. 5, the same was furnished after considerable delay and only after the matter had reached the State Information Commission. The statutory obligation cast upon the Public Information Officer to furnish information within the prescribed period was not complied with. Learned counsel further submits that the mere fact that the information was ultimately supplied would not absolve the concerned officer from the consequences contemplated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, particularly when there was an unexplained and substantial delay in furnishing the information. The Commission, after considering the material available on record, has rightly arrived at the 7 conclusion that the petitioner was liable for the delay and accordingly imposed the penalty. It is therefore submitted that no ground is made out for interference with the well-reasoned order passed by the State Information Commission and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly the proviso appended thereto, it is evident that before imposing any penalty upon a Public Information Officer, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, is required to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned officer. 9. The proviso to Section 20(1) is clear and unambiguous in its mandate. The requirement of granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposition of penalty is mandatory in nature and cannot be dispensed with. In the present case, though a show cause notice was issued and a reply was submitted by the petitioner, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any effective opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, was afforded to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed. 8 10. In view of the aforesaid statutory requirement and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner is not in accordance with law and cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.10.2022, insofar as it imposes penalty upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is hereby set aside. 12. The writ petition stands allowed. 13. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha