1 CGHC010352242024 2026:CGHC:39685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5386 of 2024 Ajay Kumar Nishad S/o Late Indu Lal Nishad Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 213/68, Near Panchayat Bhawan, Bazar Chowk Raipura, Mahadevghat Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner, Office At Sector- 19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - First Appellate Officer And Special Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - R.P. Verma Under Secretary/ Public Information Officer, State Of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra , Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, PL For Chhattisgarh State Information Commission : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Order on Board 10.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned final order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also be kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the the petitioner submitted an application dated 25.01.2023 to respondent No.3 seeking information on three points. Respondent No.3, vide reply dated 03.02.2023, informed the petitioner only that an Enquiry Officer had been appointed and that an enquiry was pending against Smt. Ritu Surange, while denying the remaining information sought. The said reply was received by the petitioner on 16.03.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal before respondent No.2. Vide order dated 12.04.2023, respondent No.2 allowed the appeal and directed respondent No.3 to furnish the information sought, including a true/certified copy of the complete proceedings till the date of the order, within the prescribed period. Despite the aforesaid direction, respondent 3 No.3 failed to furnish the information. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 17.05.2023 before respondent No.1 seeking appropriate action under the Act. Respondent No.1 thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 06.02.2024 to respondent No.3 under Section 20(2) of the Act and fixed 16.05.2025 for appearance. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay in disposal of the complaint, the petitioner approached this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Vide order dated 25.07.2024, this Court directed respondent No.1 to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the order. In compliance thereof, respondent No.1 passed the final order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-1). Although respondent No.1 recorded that respondent No.3 had failed to comply with the directions of respondent No.2 and had furnished the information only on 02.02.2024 after considerable delay, no penalty was imposed under Section 20 of the Act. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 failed to furnish the information despite a specific appellate direction and has not shown any reasonable cause for such delay. Since Section 20 of the Act, 2005 mandates consideration of penalty where the Public Information Officer, without reasonable cause, fails to furnish information within the prescribed time or otherwise acts in violation of the Act, the petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of respondent No.1 to impose penalty upon respondent No.3 and has therefore preferred the present petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not assailing the order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) in its entirety; rather, the limited grievance of the petitioner is that, despite recording a categorical finding that respondent No.3 had failed to comply with the specific direction issued by respondent No.2 for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner, respondent No.1 has failed to impose the statutory penalty contemplated under Section 20 of the Act, 2005. It is submitted that respondent No.3, despite the specific direction issued by the First Appellate Authority, failed to furnish the requisite information within the prescribed period and furnished the same only after considerable delay. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.1, having himself recorded a finding regarding the non- compliance of the order passed by respondent No.2 and the failure of respondent No.3 to furnish the information within the stipulated period, ought to have considered the question of imposition of penalty in accordance with Section 20 of the Act. It is further submitted that no reasonable or sufficient cause was disclosed by respondent No.3 for such failure or delay in furnishing the information. In the circumstances, the failure on the part of respondent No.1 to take consequential action under Section 20 of the Act, despite the findings recorded in the impugned order, is unsustainable in law. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate interference by this Court to the limited extent of consideration and imposition of penalty upon respondent No.3 5 in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2005. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 – Chhattisgarh State Information Commission supported the order dated 10.09.2024 and submitted that the same was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2005. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and that the imposition of penalty under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 cannot be imposed as a matter of course. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the information sought by the petitioner has already been furnished, though admittedly with some delay. The competent authority, while passing the order dated 10.09.2024, has duly taken note of the delay as well as the failure of respondent No.3 to comply with the direction issued by respondent No.2 and, after considering the matter, has passed a reasoned and speaking order. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the non-imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Act. However, the competent authority has considered the relevant facts and circumstances and has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law. In the absence of any apparent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order so passed, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of its writ 6 jurisdiction. More so, the substantive grievance of the petitioner regarding non-supply of information no longer survives, as the information has already been furnished. 6. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission and the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL