1 CGHC010368712023 2026:CGHC:39200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4835 of 2023 Puniram Burman S/o Late Shri Changuram Burman, Age- 53 Years, Then Public Information Officer of Gram Panchayat Rohada, Block Bamnhidih, Dist. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Presently posted as Secretary of Gram Panchayat – Sodhi, Block Bamnhidih, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, 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, Dist. 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. Md. Arman Memon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate, Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate and Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.08 17:19:16 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. This petition is filed against the impugned order dated 2.6.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No.A/2087/2020/Raigarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner was posted as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Rohada. Respondent No. 4 filed an application dated 30.08.2019 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”) before the Public Information Officer/CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Block Bamnhidih, seeking copies of the Grant Register prepared and maintained by Gram Panchayat Rohada for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. Although the RTI application was originally addressed to the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, it was forwarded to Gram Panchayat Rohada after an unaccounted delay of 10 days. However, the petitioner never received the subject application, as a result of which the requested information could not be supplied initially. Aggrieved by the non-receipt of information, respondent No.4 preferred a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority- cum-CEO, Janpad Panchayat. Taking cognizance of the appeal, the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to supply the information. The petitioner fully complied with this order and provided the requested information to respondent No.4. Despite having already received the required information, respondent No.4 3 filed a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, , with a substantial delay. Ultimately, the State Information Commission passed the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner without condoning the significant delay in filing the appeal or deciding the matter on its merits. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without complying with Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and without recording a finding that the information as sought by the information seeker was withheld with malafide intent and deliberately. As such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/Chhattisgarh State Information Commission submits that an opportunity of hearing was duly granted to the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice prior to imposition of penalty. As such, the ground raised by the petitioner is not available to him. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Information Seeker submits that the information sought has already been received and he has no objection if this Court considers this aspect and disposes of the matter accordingly. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the imposition of penalty or a recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate 4 and malafide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a finding is recorded in the order supported by cogent reasons, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner-Public Information Officer has already furnished the information, it is evident that there was no malafide or ill intention on his part. Further, the impugned penalty was imposed upon the petitioner without recording any finding of malafide intent or deliberate act to withhold the information. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14,, the present Petition deserves to be allowed for two reasons, firstly because no deliberate or malafide default is borne out by the record and secondly, because the information sought has already been supplied to the satisfaction of the Information Seeker. 9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 2.6.2023, so far as it relates to the petitioner imposing penalty on him, is hereby set- aside. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay