1 CGHC010368582023 2026:CGHC:38763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4899 of 2023 1 - Chhedulal Sahu S/o Late Shri Nankiram Sahu Aged About 62 Years Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat - Sonadah, Janpad Panchayat Or Block- Bamnhidih,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector- 19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat , Bamnhidih, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sharad Dewangan Shri Ram Colony, Behing Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier School,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate, Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate. S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 8.6.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal case No.A/2106/2020/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”). SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.05 12:32:34 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 30.08.2019, addressed to the Public Information Officer (PIO) / Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Block- Bamnhidih. The aforesaid application sought information regarding the Grant Register (Anudan Register) maintained by Gram Panchayat, Sonadah, for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019 (Annexure P-2). At the time the RTI application was submitted, the Petitioner was not posted as the Secretary at Gram Panchayat, Sonadah who happens to be the PIO. While the application was submitted, another individual namely Shri Pratap Narayan Sahu, was serving as the Secretary. The contemporary officer failed to furnish the requested information. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, Naya Raipur, after a substantial delay. Without condoning the period of delay or assessing the matter on its merits, the State Information Commission passed the impugned order (Annexure P-1) directing the disclosure of information and imposing a penalty of ₹25,000/- directly upon the Petitioner. 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. 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, 2005 were not satisfied before imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would support the impugned order and would submit that the impugned order has rightly been passed and there is no illegality in the same. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, particularly the impugned orders. 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, while directing supply of the information, simultaneously proceeded to impose maximum penalty 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, while the direction contained in the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 requiring the petitioner to furnish the information sought by respondent No. 4 is upheld, the part of the impugned order whereby proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been directed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, is hereby set aside so far as the petitioner is concerned. 8. 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. 9. The writ petition is accordingly is disposed of Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay