1 CGHC010191072024 2026:CGHC:33235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3289 of 2024 1 - Raghu Prasad Thakur S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh Thakur Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Baleriya, Post Balora, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner 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 - First Appeal Officer Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Prem Narayan Mourya R/o T.V. Tower Road, Chhote Atarmuda, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondents RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.03 10:37:01 +0530 2 WPC No. 4204 of 2024 1 - Ranjeet Singh S/o Raspal Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Dhanrodh, District Sarngarh, Bhilaigarh (C.G) ---Petitioner 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 - First Appeal Officer Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayt Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G) 4 - Akash Bairagi S/o Parasmani Bairagi Aged About 44 Years R/o Gobarsingha Sariya Tahsil And Post Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G) --- Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.S. Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. Both the captioned writ petitions arise from a common factual background and involve identical questions for determination. Accordingly, they were clubbed and heard together. For the sake 3 of convenience and to avoid repetition, Writ Petition (C) No. 3289 of 2024 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of deciding both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking 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 05.02.2024 passed by Respondent no.2 in the Second appeal case no. C/292/2021/Raigarh (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 2/State Information Commissioner, whereby a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, has been passed without issuing the mandatory notice contemplated under the second proviso to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law, having been passed in violation 4 of the principles of natural justice, and is consequently liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the notice issued under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for hearing of the proceedings itself constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement of the second proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the State Information Commission and filed his reply in response to the said notice. Therefore, according to the respondents, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 has been passed after affording due opportunity of hearing and does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 is legal, legitimate, and has been passed in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that although a notice under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, was issued and the petitioner submitted his reply, no notice as contemplated under the second proviso to Section 20(1) was issued before the imposition of the penalty. The requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposing 5 penalty is mandatory, and non-compliance thereof renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 is hereby quashed/set aside. 8. Ex consequenti, both the writ petitions stand allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju