1 CGHC010145002024 2026:CGHC:40498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2455 of 2024 1 - Ramgopal Rathore S/o Shri Sukhram Rathore Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Tendubhata, Post - Sarkho, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), Secretary Of Gram Panchayat - Sarvani, Block - Bamnhidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Sharad Dewangan Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier School Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate appears through video conferencing. 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 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition filed by the petitioner; 10.2 That, the order, which is passed by R-2 in violation of provisions of RTI Act and dicta passed by this Hon'ble Court, be quashed or set aside to the extent of the Petitioner is concerned.” 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 failure to supply information was attributable to a deliberate, 3 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 respondent No. 2-State Information Commission 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 03.01.2024 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