1 CGHC010023552024 2026:CGHC:39403 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 537 of 2024 Prakash Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Manharan Lal Sahu Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat - Dhurkot, Block - Navagarh, Dist - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, R/o Village - Dahida, Post - Bamnhidih, Tehsil - Navagarh, 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, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector -19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, Dist. - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sharad Dewagnan, Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near - Carrier School, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery) or Petitioner : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Chhattisgarh State Information Commission : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Advocate on Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 behalf of Ms. Akanksha Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the State Information Commission in Second Appeal No.A/2144/2020/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 Munund, 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. However, the said appeal was dismissed/disposed of due to non- 3 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 12.08.2022 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 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. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, particularly the impugned order. 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 mala fide denial of information attributable to the petitioner. Such a procedure is contrary to the statutory scheme as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14 . 7. Accordingly, while the direction contained in the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 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, is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL