1 CGHC010268362022 2026:CGHC:34135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3765 of 2022 1 - Beniram Yadav S/o Shri Panku Ram Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Ghadholi, Post - Chilfi, Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur - 492002 (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Nitin Singhvi R/o Mig 59, Sec 01, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Disirict Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Jha, counsel on behalf of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.S. Tekchandani, Advocate. For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shimpi Agrawal, counsel on behalf of Mr. Surya Kawalkar, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :- RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.06 11:05:22 +0530 2 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 1/the State Information Commission, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the case for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief which may suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed. 10.4 The cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1/State Information Commission is arbitrary, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. It was contended that the Commission failed to appreciate that there was no willful denial or deliberate withholding of information on the part of the petitioner, and that the petitioner was not even aware of the alleged RTI application in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the object behind imposing penalty upon a Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is to address cases of deliberate and willful violation of statutory duties, whereas in the present case, the Commission, without examining the factual circumstances, has proceeded in a mechanical manner and imposed penalty, which is unsustainable in law. It was further argued that the State Information Commission failed to consider the mandatory procedure and the true legislative intent underlying the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Learned counsel submitted that before adjudicating upon the complaint filed by respondent No. 3, the Commission ought to have first examined the maintainability of such complaint, particularly the issue as to whether a complaint under Section 18 of the Act could be entertained without the aggrieved person first availing the statutory appellate remedy 3 provided under Section 19 of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside for being passed without proper consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and factual circumstances. He further submitted that the Information Commission could not have entertained the complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the Act. It was contended that the procedure prescribed under Sections 6, 7 and 19 of the Act is mandatory, and failure to follow the same renders the impugned order unsustainable. It was further submitted that the order has been passed on the basis of assumptions and without conducting a proper inquiry, and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Chhattisgarh State Information Commission supported the impugned order and submitted that the same was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was contended that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him under the Act, resulting in denial of information to the applicant, and therefore, the Commission was justified in initiating proceedings and imposing penalty under Section 20 of the Act. It was further submitted that the complaint under Section 18 of the Act was maintainable and that the Commission, while exercising its statutory jurisdiction, rightly considered the material available on record. According to the respondent, the petitioner was afforded due opportunity and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 and submitted that the same was passed by the State Information Commission in accordance with the 4 provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was contended that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, failed to discharge his statutory duty, justifying initiation of proceedings and imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Act. It was further submitted that the complaint under Section 18 was maintainable, due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 supports the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) and submitted that the information sought was public in nature and the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, failed to discharge her statutory obligation under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was contended that the Commission rightly exercised its jurisdiction and the impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by respondent No. 1/State Information Commission cannot be faulted for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of the Act. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the information was ultimately furnished, there is no finding of any mala fide intention or deliberate withholding of information on the part of the petitioner, and the delay appears to have been occasioned partly due to administrative exigencies prevailing at the relevant time. In such circumstances, while the imposition of penalty is justified, the quantum thereof deserves to be moderated. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 is modified to the extent that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is reduced 5 from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the impugned order stands affirmed. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju