1 CGHC010363872022 2026:CGHC:34184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4696 of 2022 1 - Jadhav Sagar Ramchandra S/o Shri Jadhav Ramchandra Nagnath Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh . ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Commissioner, Sector, 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Sharad Singh R/o Flat Number 17, 18, Block-1, Lalbaug Housing Board Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Raj Shengale appears on behalf of Shri N Naha Roy, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board (05/08/2026) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 Issue an appropriate writ and set aside the order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.: 2 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, has been allowed without affording minimum opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in utter violation of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and of natural justice. 10.2 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner was serving as the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sukma, Chhattisgarh, and was functioning as the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On 24.06.2021, respondent No. 2 AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.07 20:12:08 +0530 2 submitted an RTI application seeking a photocopy of the Cheque Drawn Register relating to withdrawals and expenditure from the State CAMPA Account for the financial year 2020–21. Since the application did not specify any particular work or transaction, the petitioner, by a reasoned reply dated 05.07.2021, informed the respondent that the information sought was vague and requested him to file a fresh application with specific particulars, whereupon the information could be furnished. The respondent preferred a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority on 22.10.2021, holding that the application did not satisfy the requirement of specificity under Section 6(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal before the State Information Commission. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply reiterating that the information sought was not specific and that the Cheque Drawn Register contained details relating to multiple transactions and third parties, making indiscriminate disclosure impermissible without compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act. However, at the very first hearing held on 07.09.2022, the State Information Commission, without granting the petitioner an effective opportunity of personal hearing or duly considering his reply, directed supply of the information within 30 days, ordered recovery of photocopying charges from the petitioner, and further observed that proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act could be initiated in case of non-compliance. Aggrieved by the impugned order, which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Sections 2(f) and 6(1)(b) of the RTI Act, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, petitioner was 3 directed to furnish the information sought within thirty days and the expenses incurred in the process would be recovered from the petitioner at the cost of Rs.2.00 per page for total number of pages sent to Respondent No.2. He submits that proceedings were also drawn under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act for asking the petitioner to show cause as to why maximum penalty to the tune of Rs.25,000/- be not imposed upon him and as to why recommendation for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner be not made. He submits that the said proceedings may be drawn only after reaching to a conclusion of misconduct under the Act of 2005, on the part of PIO after due appreciation of material and not otherwise. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Chhattisgarh State Information Commission supported the impugned order and submitted that the same was passed in exercise of the statutory powers conferred upon the Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was contended that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, had failed to furnish the information sought without any justifiable cause. According to the respondent, the information sought did not fall within the category under Section 2(f) of the Act. It was further submitted that the issuance of show cause notice for penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act was based on the petitioner's failure to discharge his statutory obligations and was in accordance with the scheme of the Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the information sought by respondent No. 2, namely, a photocopy of the Cheque Drawn Register relating to withdrawals and expenditure from the State CAMPA Account for the financial year 2020–21, 4 cannot be said to be outside the ambit of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Merely because the applicant did not specify any particular transaction or work would not render the request non-maintainable when the record sought is an existing public document maintained by the public authority. Therefore, the direction issued by the State Information Commission requiring the petitioner to furnish the information cannot be faulted and does not call for interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. However, so far as the direction initiating proceedings under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same cannot be sustained. The power to impose penalty or to recommend disciplinary action under Section 20 of the Act can be exercised only after the Commission records its satisfaction, on the basis of the material available and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the Public Information Officer, that the conditions contemplated under the said provision are satisfied. In the present case, the Commission, while directing supply of the information, simultaneously proceeded to issue a show-cause notice proposing imposition of maximum penalty and recommendation for disciplinary action without first recording any finding regarding deliberate or malafide denial of information or any other default attributable to the petitioner warranting invocation of Section 20 of the Act. Such a course is contrary to the statutory scheme and the principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, while the direction contained in the impugned order requiring the petitioner to furnish the information sought by respondent No. 2 is upheld, the part of the impugned order whereby proceedings under Section 20(1) and 5 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 have been initiated by issuance of show-cause notice proposing imposition of penalty and recommendation for disciplinary action is hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the State Information Commission from initiating fresh proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash