1 CGHC010233102024 2026:CGHC:39203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3879 of 2024 Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Shri Top Singh Patel Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through The Commissioner Sector 19 North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lokesh Jhadi R/o Atal Awas, Bijapur, Distt. Bijapur Chhattisgarh (Mobile No. 7067389276) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Md. Arman Memon, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. This petition is filed against the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Complaint Case No.C/513/2023/Bijapur. SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.11 13:45:42 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner is an employee of the Department of Forest and is presently posted as the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.). In the year 2022, the petitioner was officiating as the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bijapur, and was also performing duties as the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act') in the said office. Respondent No. 2 submitted an application under the RTI Act seeking certain information. The information sought by respondent No. 2 was denied on the ground that the request was not in proper order and was framed in an inquisitive/interrogative manner. Being aggrieved by the denial, respondent No. 2 ought to have preferred a statutory First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority. However, respondent No. 2 failed to exhaust this statutory remedy and directly approached Respondent No. 1 (State Information Commission). Respondent No. 1 registered the matter as Complaint Case No. C/513/2023/Bijapur. The order sheet recorded by Respondent No. 1 states that the complaint was made on 17.01.2023, clearly showing that respondent No. 2 deliberately bypassed the First Appellate Authority. Upon receiving notice from Respondent No. 1, the petitioner duly filed a written response explaining that the information sought by respondent No. 2 was framed in an inquisitive/interrogative manner and thus could not be provided. However, during the proceedings held on 19.04.2023, Respondent No. 1, without considering the 3 petitioner's written reply and acting with a predetermined mind, issued an order sheet directing the petitioner to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed, along with recommending disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2). Respondent No. 2 remained absent on the said date of hearing. Ultimately, Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order by imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act without effectively hearing the petitioner. The impugned directing penalty is unsustainable in law, having been passed in complete contravention of the statutory provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information seeker, instead of preferring a First Appeal under Section 19, directly, filed a complaint before the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act. He submits that the information sought was interrogatory and inquisitive in nature and as such, there was no legal obligation to answer such questions. He further submits that the impugned order was passed without complying with Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and without recording an finding that the information was withheld deliberately or with malafide intent. As such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent/State Information Commission submits that the order has rightly been passed, which warrants no interference by this Court. 5. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that Respondent No.3, 4 instead of filing a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 19(1) of the Act, directly approached the State Information Commission by filing complaint under Section 18(1)(c) alleging non-supply of information within the prescribed time. Section 18 empowers the Commission to receive and inquire into complaints in certain contingencies. However, the statutory scheme of the Act makes a clear distinction between a complaint under Section 18 and an appeal under Section 19. 6. Section 19 provides a complete appellate mechanism where a person aggrieved by non-supply of information or by a decision of the Public Information Officer must first approach the First Appellate Authority and thereafter, if still aggrieved, approach the Commission in second appeal. 7. The High Court of Bombay at Goa in Goa Cricket Association vs. State of Goa in Writ Petition No.739 of 2010 decided on 22.03.2013 by the High Court of Bombay at Goa {2013 (4) MhLj 453} has clearly held that Section 18 does not ordinarily contemplate adjudication of disputes relating to refusal of information when a statutory appellate remedy under Section 19 exists. Similarly, in Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Rui Ferreira and Ors in W.P. Nos.132 and 307 of 2011 (2011 (5) MhLj 765) decided on 28.07.2011 by the High Court of Bombay at Goa, it has been observed that a complainant cannot bypass the statutory appeal mechanism and directly invoke the 5 jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 18 when he is essentially aggrieved by non-supply of information. 8. Furthermore, regarding the nature of information sought, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer & Others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 1 held that under the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. 9. Additionally, the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a beneficial legislation enacted to promote transparency and accountability in public administration. However, the penal provisions contained therein are intended to ensure compliance and not to operate as instruments of punishment in cases where reasonable explanation exists. The object of the Act is to advance transparency while ensuring fair administrative functioning. Penal provisions must therefore be invoked cautiously and only when statutory ingredients are clearly satisfied. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the complaint was entertained without exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy, and the penal order fails to meet the statutory ingredients of Section 20 of the RTI Act. 11. Unless malafide intent and deliberate non-compliance are firmly established by the State Information Commission, a principle well 6 settled 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 penalty cannot be sustained. In the present case, the impugned penalty was imposed upon the petitioner without recording any finding of malafide intent or deliberate act to withhold the information. 12.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur is hereby set- aside. 13.Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay