1 CGHC010192132024 2026:CGHC:36419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3029 of 2024 Sushil Sahu S/o Sudarshan Sidar Aged About 32 Years R/o School Para, Gudshan, Gudahan, Garh-Umaria, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... 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 - First Appeal Officer Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nem Lal Patel Village Pandaripani, Post Jurda Tahsil Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For the Petitioner :Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 and 2. For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. SS Teckchandani, Advocate. Mr. Devendra Bhardwaj, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Room Naik, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.08.2026 2 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: “10. Relief(s) Sought: 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 20.11.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 in the Second appeal case no. A/3115/2018/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..” 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.11.2023, whereby the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission has held that requisite information was not supplied to respondent No.4/information seeker without any reasonable cause and has consequently imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the RTI Act”). Hence, the present petition. 3. The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a Government employee. Respondent No.4 submitted an application dated 28.03.2017 3 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act seeking certain information relating to bills and vouchers pertaining to the expenditure incurred towards bore mining and construction of a water tank near the house of Chaturbhuj Rana, situated in Ward No.1, Uroan Mohalla. Since the requisite information was not supplied, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal on 11.05.2017; the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.06.2018 held that the petitioner had failed to provide the information within the stipulated period of 30 days, which reflected negligence on the part of the petitioner and accordingly directed the petitioner to furnish the information free of cost. Petitioner submitted a reply to the concerned Chief Executive Officer stating that several pieces of information had been sought simultaneously and, therefore, some time was required for collecting and furnishing the same. The petitioner tendered an apology for the delay and furnished the requisite information through Speed Post. Respondent No.4 preferred the Second Appeal, the petitioner submitted his reply, stating that the requisite information had already been furnished to respondent No.4 on 20.06.2018 through Speed Post. According to the petitioner, the delay was bona fide and was neither intentional nor deliberate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the same has been passed without properly considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and by mis- 4 appreciating the facts of the case. The petitioner had already furnished a reply to the RTI application of respondent No.4 vide letter dated 20.06.2017. Despite the same, the petitioner has wrongly been held liable for non-supply of the information sought by respondent No.4. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above reliefs. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/Chhattisgarh State Information Commission submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The petitioner, being the concerned Public Information Officer, was under a statutory obligation to furnish the information sought within the period prescribed under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Since the information was not furnished within the stipulated period and no sufficient or reasonable cause was shown for the delay, the penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was justified. Mere subsequent furnishing of the information would not absolve the petitioner from the statutory consequences arising out of the delayed supply of information. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner failed to furnish the requisite information within the prescribed period and, therefore, action taken by the competent authority was justified. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the competent authority. 5 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition, including the impugned order. 8. Upon perusal of impugned order including the relevant documents/material available on records, it appears that the concerned Public Information Officer has stated that due to bona fide reasons, he could not collect the requisite information within the prescribed period, resulting in delay in furnishing the same. It further appears from the record that before imposing the penalty, no notice was served upon the petitioner and no adequate opportunity was afforded to him to explain the alleged delay. 9. Thus, considering the aforesaid two aspects, namely the existence of a bona fide explanation for the delay and the failure to afford an opportunity to the petitioner before imposing the penalty, this Court is of the considered view that the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 10. It is also not in dispute that the information sought by the concerned information seeker has already been furnished. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, instant writ petition stands allowed. CC as per rules. SSD Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.