1 CGHC010286152024 2026:CGHC:39167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4309 of 2024 Santosh Kumar Shrivas S/o Late Anandram Shrivas Aged About 57 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Posted And Working As Secretary. Gram Panchayat- Taga, Tahsil - Akaltara, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) R/o Village- Mudpar - Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Panchayat And Rural Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector 19 North Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Janpad Panchayat - Akaltara District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat - Akaltara, District - Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 4 - Sharad Dewanagan R.T.I. Activist, Shri Ram Colony Beladula, Behind Stadium, Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Ms. Shakshi Chhabra, Advocate For Chhattisgarh State Information Commission : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy.G.A. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate through V.C. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petitions seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of respondent No. 2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 in the Second Appeal Case No. A/2453/2020/Raigarh and order dated 26/06/2024 (ANNEXURE P/2) bearing No. 340/Su.Ke.Adhi./Ja.Pa./2024 passed by respondent no.3. 10.3 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner was serving as Secretary of his Gram Panchayat and discharging duty as he is designated as Public Information Officers (PIOs) under Section 5(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005). 3 3. The respondent No.4 in the matter, invoking Section 6(1) of the Act, submitted an application seeking information relating to deposit slips and documents concerning he Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) purportedly which according to him, was deducted by the Gram Panchayat and deposited into the account of the government. Along with the said application, respondent No.4 annexed a total postal order of ten rupees in the form of postal order of five rupees. It is undisputed that the postal order was completely blank, neither filled with the name of the payee nor the designation of the authority in whose favour they were drawn. As such, the same were not a valid tender of application fee as required under the Act and the Rules. 4. On scrutiny of the application, the petitioner found it defective and non-compliance with the statutory provisions and vide order dated 13.10.2019, he returned the application to respondent No.4 with directions to resubmit the same with duly filled postal orders as mandated under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 and Rule 3 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 (the Rules of 2012). 5. Aggrieved by the said decision, respondent No.4 preferred a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2005. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration, vide order dated 08.11.2019, held that the postal order was not filled in accordance with law and directed the respondent No.4 to rectify the defect and submit a fresh application in proper form. 4 6. Instead of complying with the said direction, respondent No.4 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005.Notably, the said Second Appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation of 90 days. The appeal memo simply contained a prayer for condonation of delay but there were no facts or grounds explaining and sufficient cause. 7. Instead of complying with the said direction, respondent No.4 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005.Notably, the said Second Appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation of 90 days. The appeal memo simply contained a prayer for condonation of delay but there were no facts or grounds explaining and sufficient cause. 8. The State Information Commission (Respondent No.2) without condoning the delay either expressly or by implication and without recording any satisfaction on the aspect of limitation proceeded to entertain the appeal. By order dated 19.12.2023, the Commission directed that information be supplied free of cost to respondent No.4 and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005. 9. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the Chief Executive officer of the Janpad Panchayat instructed the petitioner to deposit the penal amount immediately and threatened withholding his salaries in 5 case of default. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law for the following reasons: 1. Defective and Invalid Application: It is submitted that the original application under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 was not in conformity with the statutory provisions as the postal orders annexed along with it were completely blank and lacked any endorsement showing in whose favour they were drawn. The petitioners, therefore, acted in accordance with law by returning the application with a direction to submit it in proper form. 2. Compliance with Section 6(1) and Rule 3: Counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 mandates that every request for information must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee, while Rule 3 of the Rules of 2012 provides that the application shall be accompanied by a fee of ten rupees, ordinarily through a duly filled postal order. Since the applicant failed to fulfill these conditions, his application could not be treated as validly filed. 3. No refusal of information : It was further argued that the petitioners never denied or refused the information sought by the respondent No.4. The act of 6 returning the defective application merely on account of non-filing of a duly filled postal order constitutes an administrative intimation and not a refusal under Section 7 of the Act. Hence, no appeal under Section 19(1) or 19(3) was maintainable against such a communication. 4. Bar of Limitation: The Second Appeal; before the State Information Commission was admittedly lodged far beyond the prescribed information of 90 days without assigning any sufficient reason. The Commissioner, before proceeding to hear the appeal, was bound to first condone the delay in compliance with the proviso to Section 19(3). Absence of such a finding renders the entire conduct of the Commission without jurisdiction. 5. Penalty without cause: Learned counsel submitted that imposition of a penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005 requires the Commission to record satisfaction that the Public Information Officer has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has willfully disobeyed the direction to furnish the same. In the case at hand, the petitioners had acted strictly in consonance with statutory provisions and di not exhibit any negligence, default of mala fide conduct warranting penal consequence. 6.Jurisdictional and procedural infirmity: It was further argued that passing of the impugned order without deciding the preliminary issue of limitation and without issuing a proper notice to explain 7 cause before the imposition of penalty is violative of the principles of natural justice. The entire proceedings before respondent No.2 thus stand violated. Summing up the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the State Information Commission and the consequential recovery order passed by the Chief Executive Officer deserves to be quashed in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Learned State counsel/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 representing the State Information Commission opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order, making substantive contentions in opposition that this petition deserves to be dismissed in limine as it merely seeks to challenge an order passed by a statutory quasi-judicial body in due exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 19(3) read with 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). He submits that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily sit in appeal over the decision of such specialized statutory authorities unless there occurs patent illegality or arbitrariness which is not demonstrated in the present case. 12. He next submits that the record clearly shows that respondent No.4 the original applicant, submitted an application seeking certain documents relating to TDS deductions and deposits made 8 by the Gram Panchayat- Taga, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara. The application, initially filed before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara was duly transferred to the competent Public Information Officer, Secretary of Gram Panchayat- Taga, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, under Section 6(3) of the Act on 12.09.2019. 13. He submits that instead of processing the same, the PIO rejected the application on the sole ground that the postal order did not contain the payee’s name. This action, in the respondent Commission’s view, amounted to the denial of information in contravention of the procedure contemplated under the Act. He submits that Section 6(1) of the Act, read conjointly with its proviso, casts a clear obligation upon the Public Information Officer to render reasonable assistance to the applicant in case where the request for information suffers from any procedural or technical defect. The underlying legislative intent of the Act is to facilitate access to information and not to obstruct it on minor procedural lapses. The PIO instead of assisting the applicant in rectifying the minor omission regarding the postal order or encashing the same through appropriate procedure, chose tor eject the entire application outright, thereby frustrating the very spirit of the Act. 14. Reliance is placed upon the office memorandum dated 5.10.2009 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, titled “Guide on the Right to Information Act, 2005”(Part 9 IV- Applications received without fee). The said guidelines explicitly instruct that while an application not accompanied with the prescribed fee cannot be formally treated as one under the Act, the Public Information Officer should nevertheless consider such an application sympathetically and endeavour to supply the requested information by offering assistance to the information seeker. 15. In the instant cases, the postal order was not without fee but only unfilled with the name of the payee. Therefore, the application was legally accompanied by the correct fee amount and its rejection on such a minor defect was a disproportionate and hyper technical act of refusal. 16. The Commission upon receiving the second appeal, duly issued notices to both the First Appellate Authority and the Public Information Officer (PIO). Notices were sent through registered post on 09.09.2022. The records reveal that both the FAA and the PIO submitted their written replies before the Commission, acknowledging the factual situation and reiterating that the postal order was blank. Thereafter the matter was taken up for hearing through virtual conferencing on 9.12.2022, in which both the appellant and the concerned officials appears. The Commissioner considered the replies and the relevant provisions of the Act and directed the PIO to produce certification from the postal department regarding non- encashment of the postal order as well as an explanation for procedural lapse. Despite the direction, no 10 such certification or explanation was subsequently furnished by the Commission. 17. Having afforded sufficient opportunity to the PIOs involved- both the serving PIO and the previous PIO-the Commission proceeded, after due notice under Section 20(1), to reach a reasoned conclusion that the officers failed to discharge their statutory obligation under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) of the Act. 18. The Commission, after analyzing the material, found that no attempt was made to realize or regularize the blank postal order, nor was any intimation or assistance provided to the applicant to resubmit the fee, which amounted to gross negligence and a clear dereliction of statutory duty by the PIO. Accordingly, after satisfaction on the parameters under Section 20(1), a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the PIO by the Commission vide its order dated 19.12.2023. 19. Counsel for the respondent No.2 urged that the RTI Act, is a remedial and facilitative statute intended to operationalize a citizen’s fundamental right to know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The PIO’s act of mechanical rejection on a trivial procedural omission constitutes an impediment to the statutory objective and defeats the purpose of transparency in public offices. The Commission’s interpretation that a blank postal order, containing the correct denomination but lacking the payee’s name, could have been regularized by assistance from the PIO, is in 11 conformity with the spirit of public accountability and cannot be termed illegal or perverse. 20. He submits that the Commission has proceeded in due exercise of power, after detailed examination and consistent application of statutory provisions. There is no material suggesting bias, malice or lack of jurisdiction. The Commission’s order is a well reasoned administrative adjudication aimed at reinforcing statutory compliance no punishment for bona fide error. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioners’ rejection of the RTI application on the sole ground of a blank payee filled in the postal order is an excessively technical stance which defeats the aims of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The requisite application fee was submitted and minor procedural defects could have been easily cured by the PIO through reasonable assistance mandated by Section 6(1) of the Act. 22. He further contended that respondent No.4 sought genuine information on TDS deposits- a matter of public interest. The State Information Commission rightly penalized the petitioner for not processing the application and thereby obstructing access to information and has therefore supported that the Commission’s order be upheld and the petitions may be dismissed as permitting such technical refusals would undermine transparency and citizen rights prescribed by law. 12 23. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 24. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is evident that respondent No.4 initiated proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by submitting an application dated 30.08.2019 to the Public Information Officer, Gram Pancahyat- Taga, Janpad Panchayat- Akaltara seeking certain information. The said application was accompanied by an Indian Postal of Rs. 10/-, however, the postal order was completely blank and did not contain the requisite particulars, notably the name of the payee or the authority in whose favor it was drawn. 25. It is admitted and undisputed factual position that, in absence of the payee’s name, the postal department declined to disburse the payment on the postal order. The petitioners, being the Public Information officers in all the cases, rightly returned the application and the accompanying postal order to the respondent No.4 directing him to resubmit the application along with properly filled postal order so as to comply with the statutory requirements. 26. Aggrieved by the said action, respondent No.4 preferred a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who also directed the applicant to rectify the procedural defect by submitted the duly filled postal order afresh. Instead of complying with these directions, respondent No.4 chose to invoke the jurisdiction to the State Information Commission by filing a second appeal. Pursuant 13 to this, the Commission proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 in Second Appeal No. A/2453/2020 Raigarh whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20(1)of the RTI Act, 2005. 27. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly admitted that as a matter of accepted practice, no postal order lacking the adressee’s name would be processed or paid by the postal department. The original application, not accompanied by a valid, duly filled postal order specifying the payee, was thus incomplete in the eyes of law. The petitioner discharges his statutory duty in returning the defective application and did so within the prescribed time. 28. The submission by counsel for respondent No.4 that the PIO ought to have himself entered the payee’s name on the blank postal order, cannot be accepted. Such alteration or completion of an unfilled payment instrument by an authority other than its purchaser can neither be treated as compliance o\nor validated under the law, as ti may raise issues of forgery or interpolation with a negotiable instrument. 29. Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 specifically mandates that every request be accompanied by the prescribed fee which must be paid in the manner indicated by law. In the instant case,the application was not supported by a valid tender of the application fee and accordingly, was rightly returned to the 14 applicant for rectification. The Second Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the Public Information Officer had not refused the application on merits but had merely required procedural compliance to enable valid processing. Section 6(1) (a) and (b) of the Act. 2005 provides as under:- “6. Request for obtaining information- (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to - (1) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority. (2) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Pubic Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her.” Section 7(6) of the Act, 2005 provides as under: “7. Disposal of request – (1) subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or 15 State Public Information Officer, as the case may be on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 & 9. (6) Not withstanding anything contained insub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).” 30. In view of these facts and circumstances and having regard to the legislative framework of the RTI Act, particularly Sections 6 and 20, this Court holds that the penalty imposed by the State Information Commission upon the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and is thus liable to be quashed. However, the applicant/respondent No.4 remains at liberty, if he desires, to file a fresh application seeking the desired information accompanied by a postal order duly filled with requisite particulars. 16 31. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. A/2453/2020/Raigarh imposing penalty on the Public Information Officer is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL