1 CGHC010188652024 2026:CGHC:34308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2886 of 2024 1 - Smt. Shivani Jaiswal W/o Dr. Ayush Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Deputy Collector Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Information Commission Through Commissioner, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Pradeep Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Sudhan Gupta, R/o Vill Tamnar, Tah. And Dist. Raigarh (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No1 : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- i. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS and set aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 which was issued on 21.02.2024 and served upon the petitioner in the second week of May,2024, in the interest of justice. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.08.11 10:28:33 +0530 2 ii. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the proceeding before the Respondent No. 01. iii. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, while posted as Tahsildar-cum-Public Information Officer, Tahsil Raigarh, has challenged the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the State Information Commission imposing a penalty of 25,000/- under ₹ the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 had submitted an application dated 21.01.2019 before the Head Copyist of the Court of the Tahsildar seeking a certified copy of a demarcation report, which was not an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and was never placed before the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner remained on sanctioned leave during the relevant period and was neither aware of the said application nor served with any notice during the proceedings before the State Information Commission. Despite the fact that the demarcation report was subsequently supplied to respondent No.2, the Commission imposed the penalty upon the petitioner without affording her an opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition contending that the proceedings before the Commission were without jurisdiction, as no application under the Right to Information Act had been filed before the Public 3 Information Officer, and that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that the original application submitted by respondent No.2 was not an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 but was merely an application before the Head Copyist for obtaining a certified copy of the demarcation report and, therefore, the complaint under Section 18 of the Act was not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner was neither served with any notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing before the penalty of 25,000/- was ₹ imposed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the information sought had already been furnished to respondent No.2 during the pendency of the proceedings and, in the absence of any wilful default or delay on the part of the petitioner, no penalty under Section 20 of the Act could have been imposed. It is, therefore, urged that the State Information Commission failed to consider the relevant facts and the statutory provisions while passing the impugned order, rendering the same unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 4 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is legal, valid and in consonance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the Commission, upon due consideration of the material available on record and found that the concerned Public Information Officer had failed to discharge the statutory obligations cast upon her under the Act. It is contended that the proceedings before the Commission were conducted in accordance with law and that no procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court is made out. However, learned counsel fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat & Another, Civil Appeal Nos. 1966-1967 of 2020, wherein it has been held that where a statute or the relevant rules provide a specific mechanism for obtaining certified copies of records upon payment of the prescribed fee, such records cannot ordinarily be sought by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that, in the present case, respondent No.2 had initially applied before the Head Copyist of the Court of the Tahsildar for obtaining a certified copy of the demarcation report dated 27.12.2018 under the prescribed procedure and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings initiated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 were not maintainable. In 5 view of the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel fairly submits that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission cannot be sustained in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 imposing a penalty of 25,000/- under ₹ Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been passed without affording her an opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the original application submitted by respondent No.2 was not an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but was an application filed before the Head Copyist of the Court of the Tahsildar for obtaining a certified copy of the demarcation report and, therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the Act were without jurisdiction. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had initially applied before the Head Copyist of the Court of the Tahsildar for obtaining a certified copy of the demarcation report dated 27.12.2018. The said application was admittedly not made before the Public Information Officer under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also fairly submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of 6 Gujarat & Another, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 702 wherein it has been held that where a statute or the relevant rules prescribe a specific mechanism for obtaining certified copies of records upon payment of the prescribed fee, such records cannot ordinarily be sought by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, relevant Para reads as under: “41. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the Preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application submitted by respondent No.2 for obtaining a certified copy of the demarcation report was required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules governing grant of certified copies and not under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Consequently, the complaint proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the Act and the consequential exercise of jurisdiction by the State Information Commission were legally unsustainable. 9. The record also reveals that the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the impugned penalty order 7 came to be passed. The power to impose penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is quasi-judicial in nature and carries civil consequences. Compliance with the principles of natural justice is, therefore, mandatory. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the petitioner was duly served with notice and afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend herself, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this ground as well. Thus, the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction, non- consideration of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as violation of the principles of natural justice. The same is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the State Information Commission imposing penalty upon the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Arpan