1 CGHC010036872022 2026:CGHC:28388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 640 of 2022 Yogendra Verma S/o Shagya Ram Verma, Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 1434 Budhabhah Mande Road, Raipur. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Chief Information Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001 2 - State Information Commissioner, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001 3 - Sub Division Officer (Revenue) And Registrar Public Trust, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - First Appeal Officer And Sub Division Officer (Revenue), Raipur Chhattisgrah. 5 - Kuber Prasad Pandeya S/o Lalla Prasad Pandeya R/o Village Akoli District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Respondnet/ State : Mr. Sudeep Agarwal,Advocate Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.14 13:30:24 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2021 passed by Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in the Complaint case No. 1083/2018. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the order dated 29.06.2017 void or otherwise to stay the operation and effect of the impugned order till the final disposal of this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may think fit in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.5 wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, alleging discrepancies in the functioning of Ramchandra and Hanuman Mandir Trust, Akoli. Acting upon the said letter, a revenue case was instituted before Respondent No.3. An enquiry report was called for from the petitioner, who is a Government employee. Based on the said report, respondent No.3 disposed the matter on 15.2.2017, holding respondent No.5 of a complaining nature and that prima facie, no case was made out. Concurrently, respondent No.5 sought an information under the Right to Information Act (in short “the Act”), which was duly 3 supplied by the petitioner vide letter dated 7.2.2017 and received by respondent No.5 on 16.2.2017. Respondent No.5 being unsatisfied purportedly wrote another letter dated 1.3.2017 seeking a further 12 point clarification. However, the said letter was never received by the petitioner and consequently, there arose no occasion for the petitioner to respond to the same. Suppressing the material fact of having received the initial reply dated 7.2.2017, respondent No.5 approached Respondent No.4 (First Appellate Authority). Respondent No.4 decided the First Appeal vide order dated 29.6.2017. However, neither the petitioner was noticed in the First Appeal nor a copy of the said decision was ever served upon or communicated to the petitioner. It was only at a later stage that the petitioner came to know about the pendency of Complaint Case No.C/1083/2018 before the State Information Commission. Pursuant to a direction dated 14.11.2019 by the Commission calling for an explanation, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, without appreciating the material facts on record, passed the impugned order dated 6.4.2021 in the aforesaid Complaint Case, imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never received the alleged letter dated 1.3.2017. By way of the aforesaid letter, respondent No.5 sought additional information beyond his initial RTI application, which had already been answered by the petitioner. He submits that no notice was served 4 upon the petitioner during the First Appeal proceedings nor the decision was served upon him. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State Information Commission duly supported the impugned order and submits that the Commission had issued a show cause notice dated 14.11.2019 in the subject Complaint Case calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the reply, which was duly considered and being unsatisfied with the reply, the impugned order was passed. Thus, the principles of natural justice were complied with before imposing penalty. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners had duly replied to the primary RTI request vide communication dated 7.2.2017. There is nothing on record to show that the subsequent 12-point notification letter dated 1.3.2017 was ever served upon or received by the petitioner. Significantly, the First Appellate Authority (respondent No.4) proceeded to decide the First Appeal without issuing any notice to the petitioner nor was its decision served upon the petitioner. Furthermore, the State Information must strictly adhere to the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act before imposing any penalty. The proviso to Section 20(1) explicitly mandates that the Public Information Officer must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The contention of the respective respondent that a subsequent show cause notice 5 during the complaint case satisfies this requirement is untenable. A belated notice at the complaint stage cannot cure the defect committed during the initial appellate stage. In the present case, the effect of non-service of the subsequent letter and non issuance of notice in the First Appeal vitiates the entire proceedings. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order having passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, is unsustainable. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.4.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.C/1083/2018 by Respondent No.2 imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner is hereby set-aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay