1 CGHC010273642024 2026:CGHC:40499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4190 of 2024 1 - Purshottam Patel S/o Motichand Patel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Gobharsena, Post Gobharsena District Sarangarh Bhilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) 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, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 2 - State Information Commission 1st Floor Indrawti Khand, Shastri Chowk, Motibagh Chowk Road, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 3 - First Appeal Oficer Chief Executive Officer, 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 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 in the Second Appeal case Appeal case No.A-2952/2021/Raigarh Second (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case..” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in complete disregard of the statutory procedure mandated under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”), the impugned penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner without recording any finding of malafide intent on the part of the Public Information Officer. He submits that prior to levying any penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the State Information Commission is required to record a categorical finding that the 3 failure to supply information was attributable to a deliberate, conscious and malafide act of the Public information Officer. In the absence of such explicit finding, no penalty can be sustained in law. In support of these contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment dated 12.6.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.215/2020 as well as the recent order dated 10.8.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.5304/2026. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the conduct of the Public Information Officer demonstrably reveals a deliberate and conscious failure to supply the relevant documents sought by the information seeker. He contends that such malafide intent is plainly discernible from the fact of the record itself. Hence, the omission to record an explicit or formal finding to that effect in the impugned order does not vitiate the proceedings nor does it warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the imposition of penalty or a recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate and malafide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a finding is recorded in the order supported by cogent reasons, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law. 6. This Court cannot override the statutory mandates contained in the RTI Act, 2005. Where the statute specifically prescribes a pre- 4 condition for imposition of penalty, any mere presumption or inference drawn by the State Information Commission without a recorded finding is irrelevant and impermissible. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no reasons or findings have been recorded by the State Information Commission to establish that the information was withheld owing to any malafide intent, deliberate delay or ill motive on the part of the Public Information Officer. 8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 to the extent it imposes penalty on the petitioner, is hereby set-aside. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat