1 CGHC010270502023 2026:CGHC:39682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3933 of 2023 Shankar Lal Swarnakar S/o Shri Ved Prakash Swarnakar Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Service, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Charpara, Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector - 19, North Block Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Janjgir Champa, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 5 - Sharad Dewangan Shriram Colony, Deladula, Behind Stadium Infront Of Carrier School, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Chhattisgarh State Information Commission : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL For Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 ; None present Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 10.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Nos. A/1933/2021/Raigarh and A/1936/ 2021/Raigarh respectively and seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 11.04.2023 filed by the petitioner in both the appeal (Annexure P-1 & P-2) 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. “ 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Charpara and joined his duty on 05.02.2018. On 29.10.2019, respondent No. 5- Sharad Dewangan had submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“for short the Act of 2005”) seeking certified copies of (i) the Bhandar Panji for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019, under Rule 60 of the Panchayat Lekha Niyam, 1960, and (ii) the Anudan Panji for the same period. The petitioner, vide letter dated 19.11.2019, informed respondent No. 5 that the prescribed document fee of Rs. 28/- was required to be deposited. Respondent No. 5 deposited the said amount through challan 3 dated 06.02.2020 and forwarded the challan to the petitioner vide letter dated 06.02.2020. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.02.2020, the petitioner informed respondent No. 5 that the prescribed fee had not been deposited within the stipulated period in the name of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the information could not be supplied at that stage. Against the said communication, respondent No. 5 preferred a first appeal before respondent No. 4 on 29.06.2020. Subsequently, respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 31.08.2020, directed the petitioner to furnish the information within three days. In compliance thereof, the petitioner supplied the requisite information on 07.09.2020 along with his reply to the first appeal. However, respondent No. 4 did not pass any order on the first appeal. Despite the first appeal remaining undecided, respondent No. 5 preferred two second appeals before respondent No. 1 on 19.07.2021, which were registered as Case Nos. A/1933/2021 (Raigarh) and A/1936/2021 (Raigarh). Notices in the said appeals were subsequently issued to the petitioner on 20.04.2022. The petitioner repeatedly requested respondent No. 4, including vide letters dated 09.05.2022 and 27.01.2023, to provide a copy of the order and documents relating to the first appeal so that the same could be placed on record in the second appeals. However, respondent No. 4 failed to furnish the said order and documents. The petitioner thereafter submitted detailed replies and all relevant documents before respondent No. 1 and also furnished copies thereof to respondent No. 5. The complete 4 documents and reply were also forwarded to the Collector, Janjgir- Champa, on 27.02.2023. On 11.04.2023, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 1 through video conferencing. After hearing the parties, respondent No. 1 imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each in both the appeals under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act and further directed that the said amount be recovered from the petitioner's salary through respondents No. 3 and 4. Being aggrieved by the imposition of penalty and the direction for recovery from his salary, particularly when the information had already been furnished by the petitioner and the first appeal itself had not been decided by respondent No. 4, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 failed to appreciate that respondent No. 5 himself stated in para No. 5 of the second appeals that the first appeal had neither been registered nor listed for hearing, and no order had been passed thereon. Thus, the second appeals were premature and in the absence of any order on the first appeal, were not maintainable. It is further submitted that although the petitioner, vide letter dated 19.11.2019, informed respondent No. 5 regarding payment of the prescribed fee, the challan dated 06.02.2020 does not clearly indicate the purpose for which the amount was deposited. The name of the Gram Panchayat was also required to be mentioned in the challan. The said aspect was not considered by respondent No. 1. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 60 of the 5 Panchayat Raj framework is not applicable to the information sought by respondent No. 5 under the RTI Act. Rule 60 relates to the custody of Bhandar Samagri and not to the Bhandar Panji. Further, the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1960 had already been replaced by the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Therefore, the application of respondent No. 5 itself was not maintainable on the basis of the provision relied upon by him. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 has not decided the first appeal, despite the petitioner having submitted a detailed reply along with the relevant documents on 07.09.2020 in two sets. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in furnishing the information. The impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1, therefore, suffer from perversity and are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No. 5 sought condonation of delay in the second appeals by referring to a writ petition, but failed to disclose its particulars. Thus, the material facts relating to the alleged delay were suppressed. Ordinarily, the second appeal is to be preferred within 90 days from the date of the order of the First Appellate Authority; however, in the present case, no such order had been passed till date. It is further submitted that, as per the State Gazette notification dated 11.11.2005, particularly Sections 6 and 7, the prescribed fee was required to be deposited in the name of the concerned public authority/department. Respondent No. 5 failed to comply with the said requirement, which aspect was completely overlooked by 6 respondent No. 1 while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the General Administration Department has specifically directed that information under the RTI Act is to be furnished from the documents available with the public authority and that the authority cannot be expected to search for or create information. The petitioner had joined as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Charpara only on 05.02.2018 and had already furnished the information available with him for the period from 05.02.2018 to 31.03.2019. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been held liable for information pertaining to the period prior to his joining, therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 in both the second appeals, imposing penalty upon the petitioner, are unsustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, 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. 5 had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was not furnished within the prescribed period. The Commission, upon consideration of the proceedings and the conduct of the petitioner, directed furnishing of the information and imposed the penalty in exercise of its statutory power under Section 20(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the Commission was fully competent and had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty in the facts and circumstances of 7 the present case. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had joined as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Charpara only on 05.02.2018, whereas the information sought by respondent No. 5 related to the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. Thus, a substantial part of the information sought pertained to the period prior to the petitioner’s joining. It is further apparent from the record that the petitioner had communicated to respondent No. 5 regarding payment of the prescribed fee and thereafter, respondent No. 5 deposited the amount only on 06.02.2020. The petitioner subsequently furnished the available information on 07.09.2020 in compliance with the direction issued by the First Appellate Authority and also submitted his detailed explanation before the State Information Commission. This Court further finds that the first appeal preferred by respondent No. 5 was not decided by the First Appellate Authority. Despite the same, the second appeals were entertained by the State Information Commission. More importantly, the record does not disclose any deliberate or mala fide withholding of information by the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and furnished the information available with him. The power to impose penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is discretionary and can be exercised only upon 8 recording a finding that the Public Information Officer, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the information within the prescribed period. The mere fact that the information was not furnished within the prescribed period, without considering the specific explanation and circumstances attributable to the concerned officer, cannot by itself justify imposition of penalty. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients necessary for exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the Act were not duly established against the petitioner. The imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000/- in each of the two appeals, therefore, cannot be sustained. 6. ]The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in 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. 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. 7. 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 orders dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Nos. A/1933/2021/Raigarh and 9 A/1936/ 2021/Raigarh respectively, insofar as it relates to the imposition of penalties upon the petitioner, are not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL