1 CGHC010368532023 2026:CGHC:38625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4818 of 2023 Dhananjay Ogrey, Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat - Katghari, Janpad Panchayat or Block Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh The then Public Information Officer of Gram Panchayat Kadhari, Block Bamnhidih, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bamnhidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sharda Dewangan, Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier School, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate and Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.05 11:13:50 +0530 2 S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.6.2023 passed by the State Information Commission in Second Appeal No.A/2115/2020/Raigarh. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working and posted as the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kadhari, Bamnhidih During his tenure, respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”), addressed to the Public Information Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block Bamnhidih (Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat). By way of the said application dated 30.08.2019, respondent No. 4 sought information/documents pertaining to the Grant Register (Anudan Register) maintained by the Gram Panchayat for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. The said application was defective as the Indian Postal Order submitted therewith was not drawn in favor of/addressed to the office of Public Information Officer. Consequently, the application could not be entertained and the defect was duly communicated to respondent No. 4. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.4 preferred a First Appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-CEO, Janpad Panchayat. 3 However, the said appeal was dismissed/disposed of due to non- appearance of respondent No.4. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, Naya Raipur, after an inordinate delay. The State Information Commission, vide its impugned order dated 8.6.2023 directed the disclosure of the requested information and arbitrarily imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner. The Commission passed the said order without condoning the gross delay and without considering the case on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by respondent No.4 under the RTI Act was duly supplied within the prescribed statutory period of 30 days. He submits that respondent No.4 has falsely asserted that the information was not provided, deliberately suppressing the fact of receipt. Therefore, no penalty or adverse order under the Act could have been imposed against the petitioner. He further submits that that there is violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. The ingredients of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 were not satisfied before imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents submit that the order has rightly been passed, which warrant no interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, particularly the impugned orders. 4 6. The power to impose penalty or recommend disciplinary action under Section 20 of the RTI Act can be exercised only after the Commission records its satisfaction, on the basis of the material available and after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the Public Information Officer, that the conditions contemplated under the said provisions are satisfied. In the present case, the Commission, while directing supply of the information, simultaneously proceeded to impose maximum penalty without recording any specific finding regarding a deliberate or malafide denial of information attributable to the petitioner. Such a procedure is contrary to the statutory scheme as well as 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 penalty has been imposed on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, is hereby set aside. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay