1 CGHC010303912022 2026:CGHC:34181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4111 of 2022 1 - Shailendra Dubey S/o Shri Triyugi Prasad Dubey Aged About 41 Years Working As Deputy Registrar, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through Its Secretary, Sector- 19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chunni Lal Tandon, Assistant Registrar, Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Ms. Deeksha Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.S. Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2026 RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.06 11:05:21 +0530 2 1. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :- 10.1 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records leading to issuance of impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. A/2643/2020 from the possession of the respondent No. 2, for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. A/2643/2020, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by declaring the same as illegal and in-operative in law. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be please granted to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authority is arbitrary, illegal and suffers from procedural impropriety. It was contended that the authority failed to appreciate that the information sought by respondent No. 3 was not readily available with the Public Information Officer, as the relevant records were under process in different sections of the University for verification of bills and vouchers. The petitioner, in 3 good faith, collected the available information from the concerned sections and furnished the same to respondent No. 3 without any cost, and therefore, there was no deliberate denial or withholding of information. It was further submitted that the delay in furnishing the information occurred due to the prevailing circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic and not due to any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. He further contended that the power to impose penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be exercised only upon recording a finding of willful default, mala fide denial, or obstruction in furnishing information, which is absent in the present case. It was also argued that the information having already been supplied and no prejudice or loss having been caused to the information seeker, the penalty imposed is unsustainable. He lastly submits that the impugned order was passed without properly considering the petitioner's reply and without jurisdiction, as the authority lacked the power to impose penalty. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Chhattisgarh State Information Commission supported the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) and submitted that the same was passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was contended that despite receipt of the RTI application on 15.01.2020, the petitioner failed to furnish the information within the statutory period prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, compelling the information seeker to prefer the first and thereafter the second appeal. The information was ultimately supplied only after the intervention of the First Appellate Authority and free of cost in terms of Section 7(6) of the Act. It was further submitted that before imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice, afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and duly considered the 4 petitioner's explanation. The plea of delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be untenable, as the statutory period for furnishing the information had already expired prior to the commencement of the nationwide lockdown, and even after excluding the lockdown period, there remained an unexplained delay of 37 days attributable to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Commission rightly imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,250/- in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction. He also submits that the impugned order is a well-reasoned speaking order passed after following due procedure and does not suffer from any illegality, procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the information sought by respondent No. 3 was not furnished within the period prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and was supplied only pursuant to the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The explanation offered by the petitioner regarding the delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot completely absolve the petitioner of the statutory obligation, particularly when the period prescribed for furnishing the information had expired prior to the commencement of the nationwide lockdown. The State Information Commission, therefore, cannot be faulted for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of the Act. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the information was ultimately furnished free of cost, there is no finding of any mala fide intention or deliberate withholding of information on the part of the petitioner, and the delay appears to have been occasioned partly due to administrative exigencies prevailing at the relevant time. In such circumstances, while the imposition of 5 penalty is justified, the quantum thereof deserves to be moderated. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) is modified to the extent that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is reduced from Rs. 9,250/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the impugned order stands affirmed. 6. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju