1 CGHC010323622024 2026:CGHC:40678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4753 of 2024 1 - Bodhan Patel S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Patel Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Service Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Dhouradarha, Block, Thana And Tahsil - Baramkela, Distt - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Sector-19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin – 492002 2 - State Information Commissioner Sector-19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appellate Officer/ Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, Distt. - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Akash Bairagi S/o Shri Parasmani Bairagi Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Gobarsingha, Tahsil - Baramkela, Distt. - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondents RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.18 19:12:50 +0530 2 WPC No. 4757 of 2024 1 - Bodhan Patel S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Patel Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Service Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Dhouradarha Block Thana And Tahsil Barmkela District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner Raipur Chhattisgarh, Sector -19 North Block Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin -492002 2 - State Information Commissioner Sector - 19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - First Appellate Officer / Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Akash Bairagi S/o Shri Parasmani Bairagi Age 44 R/o Village - Gobarsingha, Tahsil - Baramkela, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 2985 of 2026 1 - Bodhan Patel S/o- Shri Ishwar Prasad Patel, Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Service Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Dhouradarha, Block, Thana And Tahsil- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through The Chief Information Commissioner Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Sector-19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492002 3 2 - State Information Commissioner, Sector-19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - First Appellate Officer/ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Akash Bairagi S/o- Shri Parasmani Bairagi Aged About 44 Years R/o- Village- Gobarsingha, Tahsil-Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 2970 of 2026 1 - Bodhan Patel S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Patel Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Service Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Dhouradarha, Block, Thana And Tahsil- Baramkela, Distt- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Sector- 19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492002 2 - State Information Commissioner Sector- 19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - First Appellate Officer/chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Akash Bairagi S/o Shri Parasmani Bairagi Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Gobarsingha, Tahsil- Baramkela, Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) --- Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) 4 For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Shyam Sundal Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : None. Though served. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. All these captioned writ petitions share a common background and involve the same issues, therefore, they were clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 4753 of 2024 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of disposing all the writ petitions. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2 which relates to imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded.” 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary after due selection vide order dated 09.07.2005 and has discharged his duties sincerely and satisfactorily. He was transferred from time to time and, vide order 5 dated 24.08.2020, the petitioner was posted at Gram Panchayat Dhouradarha, where he was also nominated as the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act. Respondent No. 4 submitted an RTI application dated 05.04.2021 seeking certain records of the financial year 2020-21, including the 14th Finance Commission Cash Book, which could not be furnished within the prescribed period, pursuant to which the First Appellate Authority directed supply of the information within seven days. Thereafter, in the Second Appeal/complaint, the respondent No. 2, without ensuring service of notice upon the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing, imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner and directed recovery of the said amount from his salary vide impugned order dated 06.05.2024. The petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly when neither the petitioner nor the complainant was present on the date of hearing and there was no proper recording of service of notice. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 4 had filed similar RTI applications before various Gram Panchayats, resulting in several similar penalty orders, and that in an identical matter involving the same complainant, this Court has granted interim protection vide order dated 23.08.2024 passed in WPC No. 4229/2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) by which a fine of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed 6 upon the petitioner/ Public Information Officer (PIO) stating that he has not furnished the information as sought by the information seeker. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mandatory provisions have not been followed, as before imposition of penalty, the petitioner is required to be given a notice under Section 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act, which has not been issued to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 is not in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that since earlier notice regarding appeal has already been issued and as such the State Information Commission has rightly declared the earlier notice to be as final notice as provided under Section 20 (1) of the R.T.I. Act. As such, since the petitioner has not complied with the order of the First Appellate Authority and has not furnished the information as sought for by the information seeker, hence, the impugned order is passed in accordance with law and the penalty has rightly been imposed upon the petitioner. 7. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 4/Information seeker despite service of notice upon him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Proviso of Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under:- 7 Section 20 (1) : Where the Information Commission Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or information which was the subject of the destroyed request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of Rs 250 (Two Hundred and Fifty) each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty- five thousand rupees. The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. 10. According to the provision of Section 20 (1) of the R.T.I. Act before imposition of penalty, the concerned P.I.O is required to be given an adequate opportunity of hearing, however, in the present case, the concerned State Commission has categorically stated that earlier notice has been issued to the petitioner and as such it would be treated as final notice under Section 20 (1) of the R.T.I. Act, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not in accordance with law. Once the statute directed the procedure to be adopted under the R.T.I. Act and it is to be complied with in its letter and spirit and no deviation as such can be made by the concerned authorities. In the present case, State Information Commission has incorrectly deviated from the proviso in Section 20 (1) of the R.T.I. Act, which is not in accordance with law, as 8 such the impugned order passed against the petitioner without issuing any notice, prior to imposing the penalty upon the petitioner. Further from the order it does not transpires that the information was not furnished in time owing to any mala fide acts or any ill intention as such, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14, the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 is required to be interfered with. 11.In view of above, all these batch of petitions stand allowed and the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed in each case by the State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) is hereby set aside. 12.Interlocutory application(s), pending, if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju