1 CGHC010107962023 2026:CGHC:34249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1653 of 2023 1 - Ishwari Lal Chaudhary S/o Roop Lal Chaudhary Aged About 54 Years R/o Gram Bayang Post Kachhar, 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 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appeal Officer Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sharad Dewangan R/o Shri Ram Colony Beladula Opposite Stadium, Near Career School Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (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.4 :-Mr. Shubham Dewanga, Advocate through V.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 05.08.2026 1. The present petition has been filed against Impugned Order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 in the Second Appeal case No. A//60/2021/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 20.12.2022 passed by Respondent no.2 in the Second appeal case no. A//60/2021/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 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the State Information Commission is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, as the same has been passed without properly considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without recording any finding regarding deliberate or mala fide denial of information as contemplated under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that the RTI application of respondent No. 4 was received during the period of nationwide lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, when the office of the petitioner was not functioning normally, and, therefore, there existed sufficient and reasonable cause for any delay in furnishing the information. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had supplied all information available in her custody and there was neither any intentional refusal nor any obstruction in providing the information. It is contended that the State Information Commission, while exercising quasi-judicial powers, was required to strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice before imposing any penalty or cost. 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, it is submitted that penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act are penal in nature and, therefore, the statutory conditions prescribed therein must be strictly satisfied before any adverse order is passed. It is further submitted that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to impose compensation and cost in the absence of any finding of deliberate denial of information or mala fide conduct on the part of the 4 petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order, including the penalty and cost imposed therein, be quashed and the writ petition be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 has been passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in exercise of the powers vested under the Right to Information Act, 2005, after considering the material available on record and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. It is submitted that the Commission has recorded appropriate findings regarding the failure on the part of the petitioner to discharge the obligations cast upon the Public Information Officer under the Act and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Learned counsel further submits that no illegality, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice is made out warranting interference with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, was under a statutory obligation to provide the information sought under the Right to Information Act within the prescribed period, but failed to discharge the said duty. It is submitted that despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the requisite information was not furnished within time, compelling respondent No. 4 to approach the higher authorities under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the order 5 passed by the State Information Commission is based on the material available on record and does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 reveals that the petitioner had specifically taken the plea before the State Information Commission that the delay, if any, in furnishing the information occurred during the period of the nationwide COVID-19 pandemic, when the functioning of Government offices was severely disrupted due to restrictions imposed by the authorities. The petitioner had also contended that there was neither any deliberate refusal nor any mala fide intention to withhold the information and that whatever information was available had been furnished. However, the impugned order does not disclose any consideration of the aforesaid explanation. The Commission has proceeded to impose penalty without recording any finding as to why the explanation furnished by the petitioner did not constitute a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. More importantly, the record further demonstrates that before imposing 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. The Commission proceeded to impose penalty 6 without first arriving at a prima facie satisfaction regarding the petitioner's liability and thereafter affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing specifically on the question of penalty. Such a course is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the statute. 9. A plain reading of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 makes it evident that before imposing penalty upon a Public Information Officer, the Commission must first record a finding that the Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive the application, failed to furnish information within the period prescribed under Section 7(1), mala fidely denied the request for information, knowingly furnished incorrect or misleading information, destroyed the requested information or otherwise obstructed the furnishing of 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. Thus, the Commission is required to first form a prima facie opinion regarding the liability of the Public Information Officer and thereafter issue a notice proposing penalty before passing any penal order. 10. Therefore, 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. The mandatory requirement having not been complied with in the present case, the impugned order imposing penalty 7 upon the petitioner cannot be sustained in 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 in proceedings under Section 20(2), where the statute does not expressly provide for an opportunity of hearing, the principles of natural justice are required to be read into the provision. The Court observed that no person can be condemned unheard. 12. If compliance with the principles of natural justice is mandatory under Section 20(2), the requirement becomes all the more mandatory under Section 20(1), where the first proviso expressly employs 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 judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Sunny Sachdeva v. ACP North RTI Cell and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4961, wherein it has been held that proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act are supervisory in nature and imposition of penalty is not automatic. The Information Commission is vested with discretion while exercising powers under Section 20(1), and penalty cannot be imposed mechanically, particularly when the information sought has ultimately been furnished. 14. The same principle has been reiterated by 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 has been held 8 that penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act can be imposed only after recording a definite finding that the Public Information Officer acted without reasonable cause or mala fidely, and only after complying with the mandatory requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court further held that mere negligence or delay is not sufficient to invoke penal provisions unless the statutory requirements are fulfilled. 15. In the present case, the State Information Commission has neither considered the petitioner's explanation that the delay occurred on account of the extraordinary circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic nor recorded any finding that the petitioner had deliberately or mala fidely withheld the information or acted without reasonable cause. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure contemplated under the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act has not been followed before imposing penalty. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.12.2022, insofar as it imposes penalty upon the petitioner and directs recovery thereof, cannot be sustained in law. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No. A/60/2021/Raigarh, insofar as it imposes penalty upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and directs recovery of the said amount, is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any 9 opinion on the merits of the controversy. It shall be open to the State Information Commission to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after issuing an appropriate show-cause notice to the petitioner and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 18. The writ petition stands allowed. 19. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha