1 CGHC010085362023 2026:CGHC:34248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1439 of 2023 1 - Kirti Sahu W/o Sushil Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Manish Fabrication, Medical College Road, 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 Pussore, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vishwanth Guru R/o Bademath Para Ward No. 13, Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :- Mrs. Manju Naik, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 05.08.2026 1. The present petition has been filed against Impugned Order dated 29.09.2022( wrongly mentioned as 29.09.2020) passed by Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in the Second Appeal case No. A/3506/2019/Raigarh. 2. By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:- “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 29.09.2022 passed by Respondent no.2 in the Second appeal case no. A//3506/2019/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 imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner had neither received the RTI application allegedly submitted by respondent No. 4 nor was there any deliberate or mala fide refusal to furnish information. Despite 3 submission of a detailed reply, the State Information Commission failed to consider the same and proceeded to impose the penalty without recording any finding that the petitioner had intentionally withheld, denied or delayed the information sought. It is further submitted that the Commission has travelled beyond the scope of its jurisdiction by imposing compensation/penalty without satisfying the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2012) 13 SCC 14, learned counsel submits that proceedings before the Information Commission are quasi-judicial in nature and adherence to the principles of natural justice, including affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and recording cogent reasons, is mandatory before imposing any penal consequences. It is also submitted that the petitioner had furnished all information available in his custody within the prescribed time and, therefore, the essential ingredients for invoking Section 20(1) of the RTI Act are absent. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the writ petition be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 was passed by the State Information Commission in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under the Right to Information Act, 2005, after affording due opportunity to the parties and upon due consideration of the material on record. It is contended that no jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice has been made out warranting interference under Article 4 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the order dated 12.09.2019 was passed in the capacity of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that no RTI application was ever received by the Public Information Officer and, despite directions, respondent No. 4 failed to produce the original application or a copy thereof. In the absence of the RTI application, no information could have been furnished. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No. 3 committed no illegality or procedural irregularity and no ground for interference is made out against him. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 reveals that the petitioner has specifically pleaded that upon receipt of the notice fixing the second appeal for hearing on 29.09.2022, she had submitted a detailed reply dated 28.09.2022, stating therein that owing to the advanced stage of her pregnancy she was unable to appear personally before the State Information Commission and had, therefore, authorized her husband, Shri Sushil Sahu, to represent her and place her submissions before the Commission. However, the impugned order does not indicate that the said request or the explanation furnished by the petitioner was considered before proceeding further. 8. More importantly, the record further demonstrates that prior to the 5 imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, no separate show-cause notice proposing imposition of penalty, as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, was issued to the petitioner. On the very date of hearing, the Commission proceeded to impose penalty upon the petitioner without first forming an opinion regarding her liability and thereafter affording her a reasonable opportunity of hearing specifically on the question of penalty. Such a course adopted by the Commission is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the statute. 9. A perusal of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 makes it evident that before imposing penalty upon a Public Information Officer, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, must first arrive at a conclusion that the Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive the application for information, failed to furnish the information within the time prescribed under Section 7(1), or mala fidely denied the request for information. The first proviso to Section 20(1) further mandates that no penalty shall be imposed without giving the concerned Public Information Officer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The legislative intent is, therefore, clear that after forming a prima facie opinion regarding the liability of the Public Information Officer, the Commission is required to issue a notice proposing penalty and thereafter afford an effective opportunity of hearing before passing any penal order. 6 10. Thus, the statutory scheme contemplates not merely issuance of notice in the appeal proceedings but also a distinct and meaningful opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. This mandatory requirement has not been complied with in the present case. Consequently, the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 13 SCC 14 has held that even where the statute does not expressly provide for an opportunity of hearing before recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the Act, the principles of natural justice are required to be read into the provision. The Court observed as under: "23.Thus, the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20(2). It is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence including service jurisprudence that no person be condemned unheard…………" 12. If compliance with the principles of natural justice is mandatory even under Section 20(2), where the statute does not expressly provide for such opportunity, the requirement becomes all the more mandatory under Section 20(1), where the first proviso expressly uses the word "shall" while requiring that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded before imposing penalty. 13. The aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Sunny Sachdeva v. ACP North RTI Cell and 7 Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4961, wherein it was held that proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act are supervisory in nature and the imposition of penalty is not automatic. The Court observed that the Information Commission is vested with discretion while exercising powers under Section 20(1) of the Act and that penalty cannot be imposed mechanically, particularly where the information sought has ultimately been furnished. The said principle also supports the view that penal action under Section 20 must strictly conform to the statutory requirements and the principles of natural justice. 14. The aforesaid view is further reinforced by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Shailesh Kumar Yadav IPS v. Union of India and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine All 547, wherein it was held that penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act is not automatic and can be imposed only after the Commission records a clear finding that the Public Information Officer acted without reasonable cause or mala fidely in terms of Section 20(1). The Court further held that compliance with the first proviso to Section 20(1), requiring a reasonable opportunity of hearing, is mandatory and that every delay or lapse does not justify penal action unless the statutory conditions are satisfied. It was also reiterated, relying upon Manohar(Supra), that negligence or delay by itself is insufficient and the Commission must record a definite finding that the default was persistent and without reasonable cause before imposing penalty. The said principles squarely apply to the present case, where neither such findings have been recorded nor has the 8 mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 20(1) been followed. 15. In the facts of the present case, since the petitioner was visited with penal consequences without compliance with the mandatory requirement contained in the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.09.2022, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No. A/3506/2019/Raigarh, insofar as it imposes penalty upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. It shall be open to the State Information Commission to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after issuing an appropriate notice to the petitioner and affording her a reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha