1 CGHC010392612022 2026:CGHC:34189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5272 of 2022 1 - D.K. Singh Maurya S/o Late Shri G.D. Maurya Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Campa) Arayan Bhawan Atalnagar Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through-The Commissioner, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Gorelal Sahu R/o Agroha Colony, Near H.R. Tower, Sector-1, House No. D/07, P.O.-Sundar Nagar, Raipura, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shayam 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 against the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Complaint case No.C/596/2021 by which a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner by invoking section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner also challenges the communication letter dated 19.09.2022 by which petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of penalty to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The petitioner is presently posted as Deputy Conservator of Forest, CAMPA, Aranya Bhavan, Raipur. During the relevant period in 2021, he was officiating as the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.06 09:40:52 +0530 2 Respondent No. 2 submitted an RTI application dated 16.03.2021 seeking certain information with regard to CAMPA 14 form from September, 2020 to February, 2021 of the monthly accounts of Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund Forest Division. As the information sought was voluminous and extensive, the petitioner, by reply dated 27.03.2021, informed the applicant that he could inspect the records in terms of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2007, after which the required copies would be provided. After receiving a further communication from Respondent No. 2 dated 04.04.2021, the petitioner again replied on 13.05.2021, reiterating the offer for inspection of records and informing the applicant of his statutory right to file a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act if dissatisfied. As Respondent No. 2 did not visit for inspection or pursue the matter, the petitioner issued a further communication dated 01.09.2021 stating that, in the absence of any response, the matter would be treated as closed after 15.09.2021. Without availing the statutory remedy of first appeal under Section 19(1), Respondent No. 2 directly filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before Respondent No. 1. The petitioner filed a detailed reply explaining that the information had never been denied and that inspection had been offered due to the voluminous nature of the records. Despite the petitioner's reply, Respondent No. 1, by order dated 25.07.2022, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner and directed supply of the information. The impugned order was passed without granting the petitioner an effective opportunity of personal hearing and without considering his explanation, thereby violating the principles of natural justice 3 and causing serious civil consequences. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 has completely failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The provisions of Section 20 can be invoked only after the competent authority reaches a conclusion that the Public Information Officer has committed misconduct or has otherwise attracted the penal consequences contemplated under the Act. Such a conclusion can be arrived at only after affording the Public Information Officer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to explain his or her stand. However, in the present case, no such opportunity was granted before the impugned action was taken, rendering the proceedings contrary to the principles of natural justice and the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that impugned order is just and proper and does not warrant interference of this court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 cannot be sustained in law. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner had not denied the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005; rather, considering the voluminous nature of the records, he had offered the respondent an opportunity to inspect the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2007. It is also 4 evident that the petitioner had informed Respondent No. 2 about the statutory remedy of filing a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act in case of any grievance. Instead of availing such remedy, Respondent No. 2 directly approached the State Information Commission by filing a complaint under Section 18 of the Act. 6. Before imposing a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the Information Commission is required to record a finding that the Public Information Officer has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive the application, failed to furnish the information within the prescribed period, malafidely denied the request, knowingly furnished incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, destroyed the information, or obstructed the furnishing of information, and such conclusion must be arrived at after affording the concerned Public Information Officer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the present case, the impugned order neither records any finding attracting the ingredients of Section 20(1) of the Act nor demonstrates due consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. There is also nothing on record to show that an effective opportunity of personal hearing was afforded before imposing the penalty. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. 7. The order dated 25.07.2022 passed by Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Complaint Case No. C/596/2021, insofar as it imposes a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as well as the consequential communication dated 19.09.2022 directing recovery of the said amount, are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 8. For the foregoing, this Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash