1 CGHC010273742024 2026:CGHC:39343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4186 of 2024 Ghanshyam Dansena, S/o. Shri Netrabhanu Dansena, Aged About 41 Years, R/o. Badenawapara, District Sarangarh - Bhilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Chief Information Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk - Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 2 - State Information Commissioner, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk - Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 3 - First Appeal Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Akash Bairagi, S/o. Parasmani Bairagi, Aged About 44 Years, R/o. Gobarsingha Sariya, Tahsil And Post Barmkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.09.10 10:41:18 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mrs.Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08.09.2026 1. This petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No.C/1140/2021/Raigarh, whereby a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner in exercise of the power under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “the Act of 2005”). 2. The petitioner, by way of the instant writ petition, seeks the following reliefs :- (1). That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records. (2). That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 in the Second Appeal case No.C-1140/2021/Raigarh (Annexure P/1). (3). That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not deliberately or mala fidely withheld the information sought by respondent No.4. It is contended that the delay, if any, was neither intentional nor attributable to any mala fide conduct on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the mandatory ingredients for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act were not established. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 opposes the submission and would submit that mandate of Section 7 (1) of the Act, 2005 is very clear. Admittedly petitioner failed to supply the information within 30 days, hence, there is no error in the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely. 6. Under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005, the imposition of penalty requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate 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. In the present case, the concerned authority has not recorded any finding that the petitioner had committed any intentional or mala fide act in dealing with or furnishing the information sought by respondent No.4. There is also no material indicated in the impugned order demonstrating that the delay was occasioned deliberately or with a mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is a complete absence of malafide or deliberate failure on the part of the Public Information Officer. As such, as per the decision 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, unless and until malafide intent and deliberate non- compliance are firmly established by the State Information Commission, the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 imposing penalty on the petitioner, is hereby set-aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Ashok Judge