1 CGHC010273672024 2026:CGHC:39722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4203 of 2024 1 - Purshottam Patel S/o Motichand Patel, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Gobharsena, Post Gobharsena, District Sarangarh-Bhilaigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - Chhhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Chief Information Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk- Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. 2 - State Information Commissioner, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk- Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001. 3 - First Appeal Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Akash Bairagi S/o Parasmani Bairagi, Aged About 44 Years R/o Gobarsingha Sariya, Tahsil And Post Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- 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 11:03:20 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was working as Secretary/Public Information Officer, Village Panchayat Padkidipa, District Raigarh, calling in question the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No. A-2948/2021/Raigarh, whereby the petitioner has been held responsible for non-supply of information sought by respondent No.4 and a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon him 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/appellant submitted an application dated 05.04.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking a certified copy of the cash book of Gram Panchayat Padkidipa relating to the 14th Finance Commission for the period from 01.04.2020 to 30.03.2021. Though the prescribed copying charges were deposited, the information was not supplied, compelling him to prefer a first appeal dated 13.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority, by order dated 26.08.2021, observed that the applicant had been informed about the copying charges and directed him to appear before the Gram Panchayat and collect the information. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission. During the proceedings, the Public Information Officer stated that the information had not been collected by the appellant and that he had been asked either to collect it personally or bear the postal expenses. By the impugned order dated 21.06.2023, the Commission directed the 3 Public Information Officer to furnish the information to the appellant free of cost by registered post within 30 days and, simultaneously, held the petitioner negligent and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, had informed the information seeker to collect the requisite documents from the office, particularly, in view of the volume of the record. It is further submitted that the information was subsequently furnished to the information seeker and there was neither any deliberate refusal nor any mala-fide intention on the part of the petitioner to withhold the information. It is also contended that before imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, the Commission was required to record a specific finding regarding the absence of reasonable cause and the existence of a mala-fide or intentional act on the part of the Public Information Officer. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the information had not been furnished within the prescribed period and, therefore, the Commission was justified in imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the record, it appears that the information seeker had sought a certified copy of the cash book relating to the 14th Finance Commission for the period from 01.04.2020 to 30.03.2021. The 4 prescribed copying charges were deposited by the information seeker. The petitioner, however, informed the information seeker to collect the documents from the office, having regard to the volume of the record. The information was thereafter furnished to the information seeker. 7. The principal issue for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner could have been subjected to penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. Section 20(1) of the Act empowers the Information Commission to impose penalty only where the Public Information Officer, without reasonable cause, has refused to receive an application, failed to furnish information within the prescribed time, malafidely denied the request, knowingly furnished incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, destroyed information or obstructed the furnishing of information. The provision, therefore, requires due consideration of the explanation and circumstances attributable to the Public Information Officer before imposing penalty. 9. In the present case, the petitioner had not refused to furnish the information. Rather, the record indicates that the petitioner had informed the information seeker to collect the documents from the office on account of the volume of the record. The information was subsequently furnished. The Commission, while imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/-, has not recorded any specific finding demonstrating that the petitioner acted malafidely or intentionally withheld the information without reasonable cause. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2012) 13 SCC 14, has emphasized that the power to impose penalty under the RTI Act is not to be 5 exercised mechanically and that the concerned Public Information Officer must be afforded a proper opportunity to explain the circumstances before such penalty is imposed. 11.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. 12. In the facts of the present case, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner deliberately or malafidely refused to furnish the information. The circumstances indicate that the petitioner had asked the information seeker to collect the voluminous record from the office and the information was subsequently furnished. The Commission has not recorded any specific finding that the petitioner had acted with mala-fide intention or had knowingly obstructed the furnishing of information. 6 13. 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. 14. 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-2948/2021/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