Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35243 (CHH)

ENGLESH SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/5083/2023 · 2026-09-09

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010386972023 2026:CGHC:39684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5083 of 2023 Englesh Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat- Hathnevra, Block- Bamnhidih, District- Janjgir-Campa, C.G., R/o Village- Daarang, 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, 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 - Sharad Dewangan Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier School, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery) For 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. 4 : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No.A/2113/2020/Raigarh and seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition filed by the petitioner. 10.2 That, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 be quashed or set aside to the extent of the petitioner is concerned. 10.3 To order the cost of the petition.” 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 Hathnevra, Block- Bamnhidih, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 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 3 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- 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 08.06.2023 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 Respondent No. 4, instead of preferring a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, ought to have availed the appropriate remedy of filing a Restoration Application before the First Appellate Authority, particularly when the matter had not been adjudicated on merits. It is further submitted that the maximum penalty imposed upon the Petitioner under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is unsustainable in law, as no prior notice or effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner as required under the said provision. Respondent No. 2 also failed 4 to consider that the RTI application submitted by Respondent No. 4 sought information pertaining to eight different years and exceeded the prescribed limit of 150 words, contrary to the applicable Rules. Despite the Petitioner having furnished the information relating to the first year of the Grant Register, the impugned order proceeds to impose the maximum penalty without recording any finding of deliberate or mala fide denial of information. The impugned action is thus arbitrary, contrary to the statutory mandate, violative of the principles of natural justice, and liable to be set aside. 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 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 5 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 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, is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL