1 CGHC010190972024 2026:CGHC:36422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3400 of 2024 Raghu Prasad Thakur S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh Thakur Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Baleriya, Post Balora, District- Raigarh. ( C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through- State Chief Information Commissioner, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1st Floor, Indirawati Khand Shashtri Chowk- Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Information Commissioner, R/o 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk- Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001 3 - First Appeal Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G.) 4 - Sharad Dewangan R/o Shriram Colony, Opposite Beldula Stadium, In Front Carrier School, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G.).. …..... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 and 2 For Respondent No.4 : : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 2 14/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 in the Second Appeal Case No. A/55/2021/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 Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a government employee working in the State Information Commission. On 19.10.2023, the Commission has passed the impugned order holding that the information had not been supplied to respondent No.4 without there being any reasonable cause and further imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner in exercise of the power conferred under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Against the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No. A/55/2021/Raigarh, the petitioner has been held liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Learned Counsel further submits that the Public Information Officer, i.e., the present 3 petitioner, had never received any notice either from the concerned information seeker or from the First Appellate Authority or the Second Appellate Authority. As such, the petitioner was not aware as to what information was required to be furnished. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission would submit that the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 is well reasoned and has been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, was under a statutory obligation to furnish the requisite information to respondent No.4 within the prescribed period and to discharge the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act. The plea of the petitioner that he had not received any notice from the concerned information seeker, the First Appellate Authority or the Second Appellate Authority, by itself, cannot absolve him of his statutory responsibility and obligation as the Public Information Officer. The Commission, upon consideration of the material available on record, found that the requisite information had not been furnished to respondent No.4 and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for such non-supply of information. Learned counsel further submits that the penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed by the Commission strictly in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and after recording a finding regarding the failure of the Public Information Officer to discharge his statutory obligation. Therefore, the impugned order 4 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission is just, proper and in accordance with law. The Commission has rightly imposed the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for non-supply of the information to respondent No.4. Therefore, no interference is called for and writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the order dated 19.10.2023, it appears that the Public Information Officer has not filed any reply. However, from the perusal of the said order, it is clearly proved that there is no whisper about the receipt of notice by the petitioner. The order does not disclose that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner or that despite service of the notice, the petitioner had neglected to appear or deliberately failed to appear before the concerned authority. Thus, the specific contention of the petitioner raised before this Court that he has not received the notice has not been considered in the order dated 19.10.2023. In the absence of any finding regarding the service or receipt of notice, it cannot be said that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the 5 contention of the petitioner that he has not received the notice cannot be brushed aside. The order dated 19.10.2023, being completely silent with regard to the service and receipt of notice and the alleged deliberate non-appearance of the petitioner, appears to have been passed in complete disregard of Section 20 of the RTI Act as well as the Proviso to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, the petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.