1 CGHC010275572022 2026:CGHC:34117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3854 of 2022 1 - Dr Devpriya Rath S/o Shri D.P. Rath Aged About 38 Years Associate Professor (Bio Chemistry) Cum Public Information Officer, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492002. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Gad Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Dr. Vinay Banthia D.M. Vatika, 301 Amaltash, Shankar Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4448 of 2022 1 - Dr. Basant Maheshwari S/o Sunder Lal Maheshwari Aged About 50 Years R/o Associate Professor Medical College, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Secretary, Sector - 19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492002. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Gad Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. Vinay Banthin D.M. Vatika 301 Amaltash, Shankar Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : None present Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. Since both the issues involved are identical in nature, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant petitions seeking following reliefs:- 3 “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure P/14) 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner- Dr. Devpriya Rath was working as an Associate Professor (Biochemistry) at Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College and was also entrusted with the work of Public Information Officer under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 while petitioner- Dr. Basant Maheshwari was working as an Associate Professor (Pharmacology Department) in Medical College, Raipur, he was was also entrusted with the work of First Appellate Officer under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. It is submitted that respondent No.3 filed an RTI application, which was received on 24.10.2019 and was transferred to the concerned section on the same day. The requisite information was received from the concerned section on 22.11.2019. By letter dated 23.11.2019, respondent No.3 was asked to deposit Rs.2/-, which was deposited on 02.12.2019, and the information was supplied on the same day. Dissatisfied, respondent No.3 preferred a first appeal, which was dismissed by petitioner No.2, and thereafter filed a second appeal 4 before the State Information Commission. The Commission issued notice on 17.05.2022, to which the petitioners submitted their reply on 06.06.2022. However, by the impugned order dated 18.07.2022, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon petitioner No.1 under the RTI Act and recommended disciplinary action against petitioner No.2. He further submits that the information sought by respondent No.3 was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it pertained to personal information, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or public interest and would result in an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned individual. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, acted bona fide and in discharge of his statutory duties while declining to furnish the said information by invoking the aforesaid provision. However, the State Information Commission, without properly appreciating the scope and applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, rejected the said contention and by the impugned order dated 18.07.2022, imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon petitioner No.1 and recommended disciplinary action against petitioner No.2, which is arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Chhattisgarh State Information Commission supported the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 and submitted that the same was passed in 5 accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Learned counsel submitted that the information sought merely related to the date of payment of 7th Pay Commission benefits by a public authority, such information pertains to official financial administration and does not constitute "personal information" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. Therefore, the petitioners were not justified in refusing the information by invoking the said provision and the Commission rightly held them liable under Section 20 of the Act. In the absence of any reasonable cause, the Commission was fully justified in exercising its powers under Section 20 of the Act by imposing penalty upon the Public Information Officer and recommending disciplinary action against the First Appellate Authority (petitioner- Dr. Basant Maheshwari). According to the respondent, the petitioners were afforded due opportunity and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 and submitted that the same was passed by the State Information Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was contended that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, failed to discharge his statutory duty, justifying initiation of proceedings and imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Act. It was 6 further submitted that the complaint under Section 18 was maintainable, due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the Public Information Officer has denied to furnish the information on the ground that it is prohibited under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, 2005, 7. The provision contained under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, 2005 is reproduced herein as under:- Section 8(1)(j) in The Right to Information Act, 2005 (j)information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: 8. The provision contained under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 is reproduced herein as under:- 20. Penalties (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for 7 information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees; Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.” 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision as also the conduct of the petitioners, it does not transpire that the act on the part of the Public Information Officer (petitioner- Dr. Devpriya Rath) was mala fide in nature and he has denied to furnish such information on the basis of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, 2005 and hence when it has not been proved that the Public Information Officer had deliberately denied to give information he cannot be held liable for 8 imposition of penalty and further order for departmental action to be taken against the petitioner- Dr. Basant Maheshwari was based upon sole reasons for not furnishing the information which has been stated as per Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 and as such, the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission holding that the information has not been given by the petitioner- Dr. Devpriya Rath within time and while imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- along with recommendation for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner- Dr. Basant Maheshwari is per se illegal and it does not fulfill the criteria as stated under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 and accordingly the impugned order is hereby quashed. The Second Appellate Authority has already held that entire information is not required to be given under Section 8(1)(j) and has directed the authorities to provide the remaining information which are not prohibited under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 within 30 days. The petitioner- Devpriya Rath was posted only after the earlier Public Information Officer was transferred on 23.10.2019. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for acts of the earlier Public Information Officer's failure to furnish the requested information. No deliberate omission or misconduct can be attributed to Dr. Devpriya Rath due to bona fide reasons. The information sought by the applicant was believed to be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Although, some of the information are not covered by the said exemption. Since the aforesaid 9 information has not been furnished due to the bona fide belief that the entire information sought is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j). There is nothing on record to indicate any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner- Dr. Devpriya Rath and petitioner- Dr. Basant Maheshwari. Accordingly, the imposition of penalty and direction for disciplinary action against the petitioner- Dr. Basant Basant Maheshwari by the State Information Commission are not in accordance with law and as such, the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the petitions stand allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL