1 CGHC010337422022 2026:CGHC:34183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4507 of 2022 1 - Shyam Kumar Gupta Aged About 54 Years S/o Shri Ram Ratan Ram, Posted As Secretary, Presently Gram Panchayat- Jamdi, Janpad Panchayat - Lundra, District- Sarguja (C.G.) R/o Jamdi, Janpad Panchayat - Lundra, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Janpad Panchayat Lundra Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District - Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Sharad Dewangan (Rti Activist) Shriram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Infront Of Carrier School, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Zila Panchayat Sarguja Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District - Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - Gram Panchayat Asandih Through Its Secretary, Janpad Panchayat- Lundra, District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Surfaraz Khan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Vishal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Shubham Dewangan, Advocate through VC. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 05/08/2026 1. Instant Petition has been filed against the order dated 13/07/2022 & Communication dated 23/08/2022 (Annexure P/1) issued/passed from the office of Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 1) in AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.06 10:28:00 +0530 2 Second Appeal No. A/2977/2020/Raigarh (Sharad Dewangan Vs. First Appellate Authority, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District- Sarguja) whereby, the office of respondent no. 1 has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/- upon the petitioner herein. 2. On 24.07.2019, Respondent No. 3 submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, Gram Panchayat Asandih, seeking copies of the Bhandar Panji records for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2019. By communication dated 23.08.2019, the Public Information Officer informed Respondent No. 3 that the requested information comprised 44 pages and directed him to deposit photocopying charges of Rs. 88/-. As the information was not furnished in the manner desired, Respondent No. 3 preferred a first appeal. Thereafter, by letter dated 19.02.2020, the office of Gram Panchayat Asandih informed Respondent No. 3 that the 44 pages of the requested documents were being dispatched through registered post. Despite the information having been sent, Respondent No. 3 filed a second appeal before Respondent No. 1 alleging delay in furnishing the information. By order dated 13.07.2022, Respondent No. 1 imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Asandih, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Surguja, and is presently posted as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jamdi, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Surguja. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by 3 Respondent No. 3 had already been furnished in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore no occasion arose for imposition of penalty. It is further submitted that the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 were not complied with before imposing the penalty. In particular, the State Information Commission failed to record any finding that the petitioner had, without reasonable cause, refused to receive the application, failed to furnish the information within the prescribed time, malafidely denied the request for information, knowingly furnished incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or destroyed the information sought. It is contended that in the absence of such findings and without due compliance with the statutory mandate of Section 20(1), the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is arbitrary, contrary to law, and liable to be quashed. 4. The respondents on the other hand supported the order impugned which they assert does not warrant interference of this Court. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the information sought by respondent No. 3 was ultimately furnished by the petitioner. Once the information had been supplied, and in the absence of any finding by the State Information Commission that the petitioner had acted without reasonable cause or had malafidely denied the information so as to attract the ingredients of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. 6. It is well settled that the power to impose penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act is penal in nature and, therefore, the statutory 4 requirements must be strictly complied with. Mere delay in furnishing information does not automatically attract penalty unless the Information Commission records a finding that such delay was without reasonable cause. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 and consequential communication dated 23.08.2022, insofar as they impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash