1 CGHC010306892022 2026:CGHC:34182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4202 of 2022 1 - Dilip Kumar Gupta S/o Radhelal Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Saraipali, Pusour, 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, Chhattisgarh 492001. 3 - First Appeal Officer Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pussore, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Akash Bairagi S/o Paras Mani Bairagi Aged About 40 Years R/o Gobarsingha Sariya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vaibhav Mittal appears on behalf of Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, 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 22.08.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Second Appeal case No.A/1819/2019/Raigarh by which, invoking Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.06 10:23:36 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 4 submitted an application dated 18.01.2019 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the books of income and expenditure of the Sarpanch, Village Gotma, from the date of the petitioner's posting until the date of the application (Annexure P/2). The petitioner, a government employee and Public Information Officer, discharged his official duties and supplied the requested information through a letter dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P/3). Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Respondent No. 4 filed a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 28.02.2019, alleging that the petitioner had wrongly rejected his RTI application (Annexure P/4). By order dated 28.03.2019, the First Appellate Authority held that the RTI application was vague and non-specific, as it did not mention the relevant dates, year, or the name of the concerned programme, and accordingly disposed of the appeal (Annexure P/5). Still aggrieved, Respondent No. 4 preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission, registered as Second Appeal Case No. A/1819/2019/Raigarh (Annexure P/6). The petitioner became aware of the pendency of the second appeal at a later stage. Pursuant to the Commission's notice dated 06.06.2022, he submitted his detailed reply on 23.07.2022 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 22.08.2022, the State Information Commission held that the petitioner had failed to furnish the information to Respondent No. 4 without reasonable cause and, exercising powers under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, imposed a penalty of 25,000 ₹ upon the petitioner (Annexure P/1). 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He would submit that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, had duly acted upon the RTI application and furnished the information available on record vide communication dated 13.02.2019. It is further submitted that the First Appellate Authority itself recorded a finding that the RTI application was vague and non-specific, as it did not disclose the relevant period, year or the name of the concerned scheme/programme. Therefore, there was neither any deliberate nor mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner to withhold the information. It is argued that in the absence of any willful refusal or unreasonable delay in furnishing the information, the essential ingredients for invoking Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 were not made out. Consequently, the order imposing the maximum penalty of 25,000/- deserves to be quashed, or in ₹ the alternative, the penalty deserves to be suitably reduced. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that, vide order dated 06.06.2022, before imposing penalty upon the petitioner/PIO, a reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, which is evident from the proceedings. It is submitted that the requirement of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was duly complied with, and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. 5. Counsel for Respondent No.3 would support the order impugned. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had acted 4 upon the RTI application submitted by Respondent No. 4 and had furnished the information available on record vide communication dated 13.02.2019. It is also evident that the First Appellate Authority had found the RTI application to be vague and non-specific. Though an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner by the State Information Commission before imposing the penalty, the facts and circumstances of the case do not indicate any deliberate or mala fide denial of information on the part of the petitioner. However, since the petitioner was the Public Information Officer and was required to ensure proper compliance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 who was also afforded opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty. 7. Accordingly, the quantum of penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is reduced from 25,000/- to 5,000/-. The ₹ ₹ impugned order dated 22.08.2022 passed in Second Appeal Case No. A/1819/2019/Raigarh stands modified to the aforesaid extent so far as imposition of penalty is concerned, rest of the order will remain intact. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash