1 CGHC010368392023 2026:CGHC:39683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4831 of 2023 Mahettar Lal Khairwar S/o Shri Tehakuram Khairwar Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Public Information Officer Cum Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Amruva, Janpad Panchayat Or Block Bamnhidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bahvan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bamnhidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sharad Dewangan Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier School, Raigarh (C.G.) ... 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. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 ; None present Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 10.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petitions 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is working and posted as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Amruva, Block Bamhnidih. Respondent No. 4 submitted an application dated 30.08.2019 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking certain information pertaining to the Grant Register prepared and maintained by Gram Panchayat, Amruva, for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. It is submitted that the said application was in fact, addressed to the Public Information Officer/Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Bamhnidih and not to the petitioner. As is evident from the memo of the First Appeal preferred by Respondent No. 4 himself, the application was initially submitted before the CEO, Janpad Panchayat and was forwarded to the office of Gram Panchayat, Amruva only after a delay of about ten days. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any delay that occurred prior to the receipt of the application by the concerned Gram Panchayat. He 3 further submits that being aggrieved by the alleged non-supply of information, Respondent No. 4 preferred a First Appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-CEO, Janpad Panchayat. However, the information sought could not be supplied as the application was not found to be tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Significantly, the Appellate Authority did not adjudicate the matter on its merits and ultimately disposed of the First Appeal on the ground that Respondent No. 4 had failed to appear in the proceedings. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, Naya Raipur, after an inordinate and unexplained delay, again seeking the same information. It is submitted that the delay in preferring the Second Appeal was neither properly explained nor duly condoned by the State Commission. Nevertheless, without first considering the question of limitation and without recording any cogent finding on the merits as to whether the petitioner had committed any deliberate or wilful default in furnishing the information, the State Commission proceeded to pass the impugned order directing supply of the information and further, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner. 3. He next submits that the imposition of such penalty is wholly unjustified and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner was neither responsible for the initial delay in forwarding the RTI application nor was there any deliberate or mala fide withholding of information on his part. The application 4 itself was initially addressed to the CEO, Janpad Panchayat and reached the office of the Gram Panchayat only after a delay of approximately ten days. Moreover, the First Appeal was not decided on merits as Respondent No. 4 himself failed to appear before the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that the State Commission, while exercising its jurisdiction in the Second Appeal, ought to have considered the substantial delay in approaching the Commission, the circumstances in which the application was initially addressed and forwarded and most importantly, whether the ingredients necessary for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner were made out. In the absence of any finding of intentional, deliberate or mala fide refusal or withholding of information, the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner is arbitrary, excessive and unsustainable in law, therefore, the impugned order, insofar as it imposes a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner, deserves to be set aside, particularly when the State Commission has failed to properly consider the aforesaid factual and procedural aspects before fastening liability upon the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission submits that the impugned order was passed by the Commission after considering the material available on record. Respondent No. 4 had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was not furnished within the prescribed period. The Commission, upon consideration of the 5 proceedings and the conduct of the petitioner, directed furnishing of the information and imposed the penalty in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, it appears that routine orders are being passed by the authorities without adhering to the real aspect of the matter. The concerned authorities are not considering the aspect as to whether, before imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, notice has been issued to the concerned Public Information Officer. Further, there is no consideration as to whether there was any deliberate or intentional act on the part of the concerned Public Information Officer causing delay in furnishing the information. The said aspect is lacking in each of the orders passed by the Second Appellate Authority, i.e., the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. As such, it would be desirable for the said authority to pass an appropriate order while meeting the requirements of law laid down 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 . In the present case, there is no specific finding or material to establish that the Public Information Officer/petitioner had deliberately or wilfully delayed the furnishing of information or acted with any mala fide intention. 6 In the absence of such finding, the imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot be sustained in law. 6. Consequently, the Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 imposing penalty upon the petitioner, is hereby set-aside. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL