1 2026:CGHC:24523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3280 of 2021 Judgment Reserved On :21.04.2026. Judgment Delivered On :18.06.2026. Lalit Chandranahu S/o Late Bhushan Lal Chandranahu, Aged About 66 Years R/o Railway Station Road Police Station And Tahsil - Mahasamund District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, State Information Commission, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralay, Atal Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Directorate Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sunil Tiwari, the - Then Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Presently Posted As Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Composite Building Office, Near Nehru Chowk District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State/Res : Shri Arpit Agrawal, PL. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Kajal Chandra appears on behalf of Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by Chhattisgarh State Information Aayog, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.06.18 19:15:34 +0530 2 District Raipur in Second Appeal No.A/3796/2018 by which, the Aayog has directed Respondent No.4 to supply information to the petitioner as sought by him vide letter dated 12.04.2018. While doing so, the Aayog has not imposed any penalty on the PIO as defined under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act which is the main grievance showcased by the petitioner by way of this Writ Petition. 2. Through this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 21.11.2019 passed in Second Appeal No. A/3796/2018 by the Chief Information Commissioner office of respondent no. 3 (Annexure P-6). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the penalty @ Rs. 250/- per day from the date of application till the information is supplied to the petitioner. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate disciplinary action under 9 rule and 14 of CCA Rules 1966 against the respondent no. 4 and 5. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI Act”) before the office of Respondent no. 4 (Public Information Officer) vide its application dated 12.04.2018 sought necessary documents with regard to payment of Fertilizers Development Fund in the year of 2014-2017. On 01.05.2018, office of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 without giving the information with regard to the application dated 12.04.2018, provided another information relating to case No.A/1881/2015. Against the reply dated 01.05.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate authority on 25.07.2018 which was 3 rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground of delay vide letter dated 31.07.2018. Against the letter dated 31.07.2018, the petitioner has preferred Second Appeal before the State Information Commission on 30.11.2018. The learned second appellate authority vide its order dated 21.11.2019 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and it was directed to Respondent no. 4 and 5 to provide the documents as sought by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of order dated 21.11.2019. Hence this Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though while passing the order dated 21.11.2019, the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur has directed the Respondent No.4 to provide information as sought by the petitioner but it has not acted in accordance with the statutory rules therein. He submits that where there is considerable delay on the part of PIO in providing information as sought under the RTI Act, there is mechanism for imposition of penalty on the PIO (whether State or Central) at Rs.250/- per day from the date of application till the information is supplied which shall not exceed Rs.25,000/-, however, the Aayog has not considered this aspect in its true perspective. Further, the Aayog has not issued any direction regarding disciplinary action against Respondent No.4 & 5. 5. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that at the first glimpse, it appears that the petitioner wants to punish the Respondent No.5 for not providing the information as sought by the petitioner vide application dated 12.04.2018. It is submitted that the punishment under the RTI Act is very sensitive issue, it cannot be imposed as a mandatory provision in default of not supplying the information. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the Commission recorded a categorical finding that the requested information exists and is available with the 4 public authority, and therefore the same is liable to be supplied and the Commission, in exercise of powers under Section 19(8)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, directed the Public Information Officer to furnish complete information within 30 days free of cost. The said direction fully satisfies the statutory object of the RTI Act as the Commission has already allowed the appeal and ensured disclosure. The writ petition is therefore infructuous in substance. Further, Penalty is not a matter of right as Section 20 is not automatic. The same requires (i) malafide denial, or (ii) absence of reasonable cause. However, In the absence of any such finding penalty has not been imposed. The Commission correctly prioritized access to information (Section 19) over punitive action. Moreover, there is no finding of deliberate suppression. The record shows procedural lapses at best-not willful obstruction. Accepting the petitioner's contention would make penalty mandatory in every delay, which is contrary to law. To bolster his submission, reliance has been placed by counsel for Respondent No.3 in order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No.9095 of 2012, arising out of SLP(C) No.7529 of 2009 on submission that penalty requires conscious satisfaction and cannot be imposed mechanically. Further, in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay {(2011) 8 SCC 497}, it was held that RTI must not become a tool of administrative oppression. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 would submit that petitioner has got the information as sought by him, as such, grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed. The petitioner cannot seek imposition of penalty on the PIO as as mandatory procedure under the RTI Act. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 9. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 12.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain documents relating to payment from the Fertilizers Development Fund for the period 2014– 2017 from the office of Respondent No.4, the Public Information Officer. Instead of furnishing the information sought, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 supplied information relating to another case vide reply dated 01.05.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a first appeal, which was rejected on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. 10.The Commission, vide order dated 21.11.2019, allowed the appeal and directed the concerned Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within 30 days free of cost. However, the Commission did not impose any penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act nor did it direct initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials. Aggrieved by the non- imposition of penalty and absence of disciplinary action, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking quashment of the order dated 21.11.2019 to that extent and for issuance of directions to impose penalty upon the Public Information Officer and initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Nos.4 and 5. 11. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission has already allowed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner and directed Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within a stipulated period of 30 days free of cost. Thus, the 6 primary object of the RTI Act, namely disclosure of information, already stands satisfied. 12.So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding non-imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is concerned, it is well settled that imposition of penalty is not automatic merely because there is delay in furnishing information. Before imposing penalty, the competent authority is required to record a finding that the Public Information Officer has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive the application or failed to furnish information within the prescribed time or acted mala fide in denying the request for information. In the present case, the Commission has not recorded any finding regarding deliberate or mala fide denial of information on the part of Respondent Nos.4 and 5. 13.In the matter of Sunny Sachdeva Versus ACP North Rti Cell and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4961, High Court of Delhi held in paragraph 6, which reads as under:- 6. In the opinion of this Court, the formation of opinion under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act is in the exercise of supervisory powers of CIC and not in the exercise of the adjudicatory powers. This Court is also of the view that the information seeker has no locus standi in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. This Court is further of the view that the law laid down in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash, LPA No. 777/2010, decided on 29th March, 2012 is applicable to proceedings under both Section 20(1) and Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the CIC was well entitled in its discretion not to direct imposition of monetary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, especially, when the information sought by the Appellant had been directed to be provided to him. 7 14.The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter of Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine All 547 held in paragraph 18, 19, 23, 27 & 29, which reads as under:- “ 18. Upon a careful reading of the above provision, it becomes evident that the power to impose penalty is not for every delay or deficiency in furnishing information. The provision mandates that the Commission must first form an opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has acted without reasonable cause in refusing to receive the application, in failing to furnish information within the stipulated time, or has acted mala fide, knowingly furnished incorrect or misleading information, destroyed the requested information, or otherwise obstructed its disclosure. The existence of one of these jurisdictional facts is a necessary condition for the imposition of penalty. 19. Further, the first proviso incorporates the principles of natural justice by requiring that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded before any penalty is imposed. It is a matter of fact that the second proviso places the burden upon the concerned officer to demonstrate that he acted reasonably and diligently. Thus, while the statute shifts the evidentiary burden on petitioner, it does not dispense with the foundational requirement that the Commission must record a clear and reasoned finding as to absence of reasonable cause or presence of mala fide conduct and the enquiry report, which got submitted timely, could have been used for the determination of the reason for delay. 23. The Supreme Court in a similar fact of the case, Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, discussed various aspects of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, and observed that: “31. It appears that the facts have not been correctly noticed and, in any case, not in their entirety by the State Information Commission. It had formed an opinion that the appellant was negligent and had not performed the duty cast upon him. The Commission noticed that there was 73 days' delay in informing the applicant and, thus, there was negligence while performing duties. If one examines the provisions of Section 20(2) in their entirety then it becomes obvious that every default on the part of the officer concerned may not result in issuance of a recommendation for disciplinary action. The case must fall in any of the specified defaults and reasoned finding has to be recorded by the 8 Commission while making such recommendations. “Negligence” per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Act can be invoked. The Commission must return a finding that such negligence, delay or default is persistent and without reasonable cause. In our considered view, the Commission, in the present case, has erred in not recording such definite finding. The appellant herein had not failed to receive any application, had not failed to act within the period of 30 days (as he had written a letter calling for information), had not mala fide denied the request for information, had not furnished any incorrect or misleading information, had not destroyed any information and had not obstructed the furnishing of the information…” 27. Applying the above principles to the facts at hand, it is to be determined whether orders passed by CIC and petitioner's alleged defaults fulfil the conditions prescribed under Section 20(1) and (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The fact of the present case clearly show that at no stage, there was any allegation or observation supported by any evidence, by any authority or the Central Information Commission that there was any deliberate act or omission by the petitioner in supplying the information desired by the complainant. Instead, the fact finding inquiry report has clearly given justification for the delay at institutional level, which was more of infrastructure problem than has anything to do with the petitioner and the report in fact clearly says that the reason for delay shall not be assigned to any of the Officer. 29. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no persistent default, nor was there any absence of reasonable cause, as contemplated under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The Commission's action in imposing maximum monetary penalty and recommending disciplinary action without awaiting the report, reflects a procedural impropriety and an element of arbitrariness. In view of the statutory scheme and settled judicial principles, the penalty imposed on the petitioner was unjustified, especially when the complainant has later send the letter stating that he has received the required information.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra has authoritatively held that penalty cannot be imposed mechanically and that a reasoned finding is a sine qua non for invoking Section 20. The Court emphasized that mere negligence or delay would not automatically attract penal 9 consequences unless it falls within the specified defaults under the statute. Similarly, in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, it has been cautioned that while enforcing transparency, the Act should not be allowed to become a tool for harassment of public authorities. 16. The view taken by the High Court of Delhi in Sunny Sachdeva (supra) further clarifies that penalty proceedings are essentially between the Commission and the erring officer, and the information seeker does not have a vested or enforceable right to demand imposition of penalty. The Commission, being a statutory authority, is best suited to evaluate the conduct of the Public Information Officer and to decide whether penal consequences are warranted. 17.The statutory scheme of the Right to Information Act, 2005 makes a clear distinction between the power to secure access to information under Section 19 and the power to impose penalty under Section 20. While the former is remedial in nature to ensure transparency and accountability, the latter is punitive and can be invoked only upon satisfaction of the specific conditions enumerated therein. The Commission, having exercised its remedial jurisdiction and directed disclosure of information, cannot be compelled to invoke its punitive jurisdiction in the absence of jurisdictional facts. 18. The contention of the petitioner that penalty at the rate of Rs.250/- per day ought to have been imposed from the date of application till supply of information proceeds on an assumption that penalty is mandatory in every case of delay. Such interpretation would render the expression “without reasonable cause” occurring in Section 20(1) otiose. The legislative intent is clearly to confer discretion upon the Commission to examine the explanation offered by the 10 Public Information Officer and to determine whether the delay was deliberate, mala fide or without reasonable cause. 19.It is also pertinent to observe that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Information Commission is limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over the discretionary satisfaction of the Commission, particularly in matters relating to imposition of penalty, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or suffering from patent illegality. In the present case, no such infirmity is demonstrated. 20. In absence of any material demonstrating mala fide intention or deliberate suppression of information by the concerned Public Information Officer, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction for imposition of penalty or initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Nos.4 and 5. 21.Consequently, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 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 21.04.2026 18.06.2026 ------ 18.06.2026