1 CGHC010069522023 2026:CGHC:35618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1186 of 2023 1 - Madan Kumar Raghuvansi S/o Late Shri Darashan Singh Raghuvansi, Aged About 59 Years Working As Assistant Director, Public Instructions Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner, Sector -19, North Block, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Assistant Director, Local Establishment -3, Public Instruction Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mr. Gupteshwar Prasad Sao, Shivanand Nagar--3, Khamtarai Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin -492008 Mo. 9203004447 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging legality and validity of order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 1, whereby the respondent no. 1 has imposed the penalty of Rs.13750/- upon the petitioner for delay in providing the information to the respondent no. 3 under the right to information act. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was working as Assistant AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.17 10:13:56 +0530 2 Director/Public Information Officer (PIO), Public Instruction Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 3 submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 26.08.2019 seeking information regarding vacant posts of Assistant Teachers (Science and Arts), Teachers (Science, English, Agriculture and Mathematics), and Librarians throughout the State of Chhattisgarh. Upon receipt of the RTI application, the petitioner promptly forwarded a note-sheet dated 29.08.2019 to Respondent No. 2, requesting that the requisite information be supplied within 10 days. Thereafter, by letter dated 30.08.2019, the petitioner again requested Respondent No. 2 to provide the information by 27.09.2019. Respondent No. 2 ultimately furnished the requisite information to the petitioner by letter dated 19.11.2019. In the meantime, Respondent No. 3 had preferred a first appeal on 10.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority directed that the information be supplied to Respondent No. 3 free of cost. Accordingly, upon receiving the information from Respondent No. 2, the petitioner supplied the same to Respondent No. 3 by letter dated 21.11.2019. Aggrieved by the decision of the First Appellate Authority, Respondent No. 3 preferred a second appeal before Respondent No. 1 on 05.02.2020. Respondent No. 1 thereafter passed an order dated 17.11.2021 and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 23.05.2022, specifically explaining that he had taken prompt steps for obtaining the information from Respondent No. 2 and had supplied the information free of cost to Respondent No. 3 on 21.11.2019 immediately after receiving it. However, without properly considering the petitioner's explanation and without affording any further effective opportunity of hearing, Respondent No. 1 passed the 3 impugned order dated 23.05.2022, imposing a penalty of Rs.13,750/- upon the petitioner. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by registered post on 16.06.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that he had acted diligently and within the scope of his duties, had taken timely steps to procure the information, and had ultimately supplied the information to Respondent No. 3 free of cost. It is further contended that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the petitioner's reply and without granting a further opportunity of hearing, rendering the order illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. He submits that since information as sought by Respondent No.3 was not present in his office, he had to seek the said information from Respondent No.2 who supplied information to petitioner on 19.11.2019 and within two days i.e. on 21.11.2019, petitioner has supplied the information to Respondent No.3, which is evident from reply of petitioner (Annexure P/8). This fact has not been considered by Respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. 4. Counsel for Respondent No.1 would oppose the submission made by petitioner and support the impugned order. 5. In the present case, the record reveals that the RTI application was submitted by respondent No.3 on 26.08.2019. The petitioner, upon receipt thereof, did not sit over the application or remain inactive. He immediately forwarded a note-sheet dated 29.08.2019 to respondent No.2 requesting that the requisite information be supplied within 10 days. Thereafter, by letter 4 dated 30.08.2019, he again requested respondent No.2 to furnish the information by 27.09.2019. 6. It is not in dispute that the information sought by respondent No.3 was not available with the petitioner in his office and was required to be obtained from respondent No.2. The petitioner had, therefore, taken steps to procure the information from the concerned authority. Respondent No.2 ultimately furnished the requisite information to the petitioner only on 19.11.2019. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner supplied the information to respondent No.3 on 21.11.2019, i.e. within two days of its receipt. 7. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is material for determining whether the delay in furnishing the information can be attributed to him so as to attract the penal consequences under Section 20(1) of the Act. The statutory scheme itself recognizes that penalty can be imposed where the failure is without reasonable cause. Therefore, mere delay by itself cannot be considered in isolation from the explanation furnished by the Public Information Officer and the steps taken by him in discharge of his statutory duties. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record sufficient material to demonstrate that he had taken prompt and continuous steps for obtaining the information from respondent No.2. The delay between 30.08.2019 and 19.11.2019 occurred essentially at the stage when the information was awaited from respondent No.2. Significantly, once the information was received, the petitioner furnished the same to respondent No.3 without any further avoidable delay. 5 9. This aspect of the matter, specifically raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice, was required to be duly considered by respondent No.1 while determining whether the petitioner had acted reasonably and diligently. It is also relevant that the petitioner ultimately supplied the information free of cost to respondent No.3 on 21.11.2019, immediately after receiving it from respondent No.2. Thus, the material on record does not disclose any deliberate withholding of information, mala fide intention, or obstruction on the part of the petitioner. 10.In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has satisfactorily demonstrated that he had taken timely steps for obtaining the information and that, immediately upon receipt of the information from respondent No.2, he furnished the same to respondent No.3. The delay, therefore, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be said to be attributable to any deliberate or unreasonable conduct on the part of the petitioner so as to warrant imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. 11.Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 23.05.2022, whereby penalty of Rs.13,750/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, suffers from non-consideration of the material facts and the explanation furnished by the petitioner and cannot be sustained. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.05.2022 passed by respondent No.1 imposing penalty of Rs.13,750/- upon the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash