1 CGHC010280892024 2026:CGHC:39722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4229 of 2024 1 - Purshottam Patel S/o Motichand Patel, Aged About 36 Years Village Gobharsena, Post Gobharsena, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Chief Information Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk - Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Information Commissioner, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Showk - Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - First Appeal Officer, Chief Executive Offiicer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Akash Bairagi, S/o Parasmani Bairagi, Aged About 44 Years R/o Gobarsingha Sariya, Tahsil And Post Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri S. S. Tekchandani, Advocate. NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.09.16 11:03:53 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as Secretary/Public Information Officer, Gram Panchayat Padkidipa, Janpad Panchayat Barmkela, District Raigarh, has called in question the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No. A-2935/2021/Raigarh, whereby the Commission, while directing supply of the information sought by respondent No.4, has also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The facts, in brief, are that Respondent No.4 submitted an RTI application dated 05.04.2021 before the petitioner/Public Information Officer seeking information regarding the Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) in Gram Panchayat Padkidipa for the financial years 2014-15 to 2020-21. Though the requisite copying charges were deposited, the information was not furnished, leading to a first appeal dated 13.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority, by order dated 26.08.2021, directed respondent No.4 to appear before the Gram Panchayat office and collect the information. Thereafter, respondent No.4 preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission on 29.11.2021. Before the Commission, the petitioner stated that the information was available in voluminous records and that respondent No.4 had been advised to collect the same personally or bear the additional postal charges. By the impugned order dated 21.06.2023, the Commission directed supply of the information free of cost and 3 imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to law. It is contended that the petitioner had informed the information seeker that the documents could be obtained from the office of the Gram Panchayat, particularly because the information consisted of voluminous records and sending the same through post would involve substantial postal expenditure. According to learned counsel, the petitioner never intended to withhold the information or to obstruct the statutory right of the information seeker. 4. It is further submitted that the information was subsequently supplied and there was no deliberate or mala-fide delay on the part of the petitioner. It is also argued that before imposing the penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, the Commission was required to afford an effective and meaningful opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances causing the delay and, thereafter, record a specific finding that the failure to furnish information was without reasonable cause or that the petitioner had acted deliberately or mala-fide. According to the petitioner, no such specific finding has been recorded in the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the information seeker had deposited the requisite copying charges and, thereafter, it was incumbent upon the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, to furnish the information sought in accordance with the Act. It is argued that merely asking the information seeker to personally visit the office 4 cannot be treated as compliance with the statutory obligation, particularly when the requisite copying charges had already been deposited. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of hearing and that the delay in furnishing the information justified the imposition of penalty. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 and the documents placed before this Court. 7. The undisputed position emerging from the record is that the information seeker submitted the RTI application on 05.04.2021, the Public Information Officer demanded copying charges, and the information seeker deposited the requisite amount. It is also apparent that the information was not furnished to the information seeker within the prescribed period. Instead, he was asked to appear before the Gram Panchayat office and obtain the information. 8. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a Public Information Officer is under a statutory obligation to deal with an application under the RTI Act in accordance with law. Once the requisite copying charges had been deposited, the Public Information Officer was expected to furnish the information in the manner permissible under the Act and the applicable Rules. Mere communication to the information seeker to personally appear in the office cannot, by itself, be treated as complete compliance with the statutory obligation. 9. However, the question before this Court is not merely whether there was some delay in furnishing the information. The material question is whether the statutory requirements for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act were satisfied. 5 10. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act empowers the Information Commission to impose penalty where the Public Information Officer, without reasonable cause, refuses to receive an application for information or has not furnished the information within the time specified under Section 7(1), or has malafidely denied the request for information, or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or destroyed information which was the subject of the request, or obstructed in any manner the furnishing of information. 11. Thus, the mere fact that information was furnished belatedly, by itself, does not automatically warrant imposition of the maximum statutory penalty. The Commission is required to consider the explanation furnished by the Public Information Officer and determine whether the delay or failure was without reasonable cause and/or whether the conduct was mala-fide, depending upon the ground on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. 12. In the present case, the petitioner had taken a specific stand that the documents sought by the information seeker were voluminous and that he was accordingly informed to collect the documents from the Gram Panchayat office. The record also indicates that the information seeker was advised to appear before the office and obtain the documents. Whether such explanation ultimately deserves acceptance or not is a matter which the competent authority was required to examine while considering the question of penalty. 13. The Supreme Court in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2012) 13 SCC 14, while considering the scope of Section 20 of the RTI Act, has emphasized that the power to impose penalty is a serious statutory power and cannot be exercised 6 mechanically. The concerned Public Information Officer is required to be given an opportunity to explain the alleged default and the authority must arrive at the requisite satisfaction on the basis of the material available on record. 14. It is also relevant to notice that the information seeker had earlier preferred the first appeal and thereafter the second appeal in relation to the information sought from the petitioner. The material placed before this Court further indicates that the same information seeker has instituted two writ petitions before this Court against the same Public Information Officer. This circumstance indicates that the information seeker has been regularly pursuing proceedings against the petitioner in relation to information sought under the RTI Act. Needless to say, the exercise of the right to seek information and to pursue statutory remedies cannot be curtailed merely because a person is a frequent or regular information seeker. However, the aforesaid circumstance is a relevant factual aspect which may be taken into consideration while examining the overall conduct of the parties and, particularly, whether the alleged delay on the part of the Public Information Officer was deliberate, mala-fide or intended to obstruct the right to information. 15. In the present case, the impugned order does not record a specific and reasoned finding demonstrating that the petitioner had acted mala-fide or that the failure/delay in furnishing the information was without reasonable cause, after duly considering the explanation offered by him. The Commission has proceeded substantially on the basis that the information was not supplied and that the petitioner asked the information seeker to visit the office and obtain the documents. 7 16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No. A-2935/2021/Raigarh, insofar as it imposes a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Nikita