1 CGHC010012112024 2026:CGHC:38626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 239 of 2024 1 - Ravishankar Sahu S/o Shri Manharan Lal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat - Mehda, Block-Navagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), R/o Village - Bhadesar, Post - Dhaneli, Tehsil-Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bamnhidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Sharad Dewangan Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near - Carrier School, Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate, Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate and Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.02 17:13:14 +0530 2 01/09/2026 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 19.1.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal case A/2143/2020/Raigarh, whereby, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner/Public Information Officer by invoking Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act, 2005”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving and posted as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat – Munund, Block Navagarh at the relevant time. Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act, 2005”). In the application dated 30.08.2019, respondent No. 4 sought information regarding the Grant Register (Anudan Register) maintained by the Gram Panchayat for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. The Petitioner was not aware of the Application made to him; hence, no information was supplied to respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the alleged inaction in providing the information, respondent No.4 filed a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority-cum- CEO, Janpad Panchayat. The said appeal was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to supply the information to respondent No.4. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 filed a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, Naya Raipur, after a huge delay, seeking the said information. The State Information Commission issued the impugned order directing the supply of information and imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the Petitioner, without condoning the delay. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order imposing the penalty without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the RTI Act and without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that there is violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. He submits that ingredients of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act were not satisfied before imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respective respondents would support the impugned order and would submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed and there is no illegality in the same. 6. The power to impose penalty or to recommend disciplinary action under Section 20 of the Act can be exercised only after the Commission records its satisfaction, on the basis of the material available and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the Public Information Officer, that the conditions contemplated under the said provision are satisfied. In the present case, the Commission proceeded to impose maximum penatly without first recording any finding regarding deliberate or malafide denial of information or any other default attributable to the petitioner warranting invocation of Section 20 of the Act. Such a course is contrary to the statutory scheme and the principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.01.2023 whereby proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 have been initiated by imposing maximum penalty upon the petitioner is hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the State Information Commission from initiating fresh proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay