1 CGHC010353392024 2026:CGHC:39505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5196 of 2024 Madhurani Ratrey W/o Goving Ratrey, Aged About 36 Years, Public Information Officer /Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jhapeli, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat Nawapara (B), Janpad Panchayat, Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - First Appellate Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Sharad Dewangan RTI, Activist/Gram Panchayat Sachiv, Address - Shri Ram Colony, Beladula, Behind Stadium, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. and Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocates For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate through VC Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09.09.2026 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.09.11 13:04:19 +0530 2 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 & notice/letter dated 06.08.2024 & 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 1. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is the Public Information Officer/Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jhapeli, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 16.05.2024, whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner for not furnishing the documents as sought by the information seeker within the prescribed period. He further submits that the concerned authorities before imposing such penalty, a show-cause notice has not been issued to the petitioner and that there has been non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Learned counsel further submits that the information sought by the information seeker has already been furnished. However, the concerned authority has not recorded any finding that the delay in furnishing the information was occasioned by any mala fide or deliberate and intentional act on the part of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that, in the absence of any such finding, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing before imposition of the penalty and that a show-cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner. Despite the same, the petitioner failed to furnish the information sought by the information seeker within the prescribed period. It is, therefore, submitted that the penalty has rightly been imposed upon the petitioner. However, learned counsel could not point out any specific finding recorded by the authority to the effect that the delay was occasioned by any mala fide or deliberate and intentional act on the part of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as Information Seeker submit that the information as sought has already been furnished to the Information Seeker and the same has been accepted by him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has not recorded any specific finding as to whether the petitioner had acted mala fide or had deliberately and intentionally failed to furnish the information sought by the Information Seeker within the prescribed period. 7. 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, while considering the scope of penalty under the Right to Information Act, has emphasized the requirement of establishing a deliberate failure or neglect on the part of the Public Information Officer. 4 The authority imposing penalty is required to consider whether the default was without reasonable cause and whether the conduct of the Public Information Officer warranted imposition of penalty. 8. In the present case, on perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that respondent No.2 has not recorded any specific finding that the petitioner deliberately or mala fide failed to furnish the information sought by the Information Seeker. The impugned order proceeds essentially on the basis of the delay in furnishing the information. There is no categorical finding demonstrating that such delay was intentional or that the petitioner had deliberately withheld the information. 9. Further, the fact that the information sought has already been furnished is also a relevant circumstance which ought to have been considered while examining whether the petitioner had deliberately or mala fide withheld the information. In the absence of a specific finding regarding deliberate or mala fide failure on the part of the petitioner, the penalty imposed upon him cannot be sustained merely on the ground that there was some delay in furnishing the information. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 16.05.2024, insofar as it relates to the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner, is not sustainable in law. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 5 12. The impugned order dated 16.05.2024 passed by respondent No.2, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Preeti