1 CGHC010192432023 2026:CGHC:40643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2730 of 2023 • Madan Kumar Raghuvansi S/o Late Shri Darashan Singh Raghuvansi Aged About 59 Years Working As Assistant Director, Public Instructions Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner, Sector- 19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Assistant Director (Vigilance) Public Instruction Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Mr. Gopichand Sahu Advocate And RTI Social Activist, Sarvodaya Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sunderlal Tekchandani, Advocate For State Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging legality and validity of order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.09.21 11:34:28 +0530 2 no. 1, whereby respondent no. 1 has imposed the penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner for delay in providing the information to respondent no. 3 under the right to information act. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is working as Assistant Director/Public Information Officer, Public Instruction Department, Raipur (C.G.). Respondent No. 3 submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 03.12.2018 seeking certain information regarding the enquiry being conducted against Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Open School. The petitioner forwarded the application to respondent No. 2, who, vide communication dated 19.12.2018, informed that the enquiry was pending and the information could not be furnished at that stage. The said communication was conveyed to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 thereafter submitted another application dated 31.12.2018 seeking copies of the note-sheets and statements recorded during the enquiry and subsequently preferred a first appeal with a delay of about two months. As the appeal was not decided within the prescribed period, he preferred a second appeal before respondent No. 1 on 11.07.2019, also with a delay of about two months. After completion of the enquiry, respondent No. 2 furnished the requisite information on 06.07.2020, which was forwarded by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 by registered post on 07.07.2020. The petitioner also submitted his reply before respondent No. 1 on 07.02.2022, stating that the information had already been furnished to respondent No. 3. However, respondent No. 1, without properly considering the petitioner's reply and without affording any further 3 opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order dated 05.05.2022, imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that he had acted diligently and within the scope of his duties, had taken timely steps to procure the information, and had ultimately supplied the information to Respondent No. 3 free of cost. It is further contended that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the petitioner's reply and without granting a further opportunity of hearing, rendering the order illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. He submits that since information as sought by Respondent No.3 was not present in his office, he had to seek the said information from Respondent No.2 who supplied information to petitioner on 06.07.2020 and within one day i.e. on 07.07.2020, petitioner has supplied the information to Respondent No.3. This fact has not been considered by Respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. 4. Counsel for Respondent No.1 would oppose the submission made by petitioner and support the impugned order. 5. In the present case, the record reveals that the RTI application was submitted by respondent No.3 on 03.12.2018. The petitioner, upon receipt thereof, did not sit over the application or remain inactive. He immediately forwarded a note-sheet to respondent No.2. 6. It is not in dispute that the information sought by respondent No.3 was not available with the petitioner in his office and was required to be 4 obtained from respondent No.2. The petitioner had, therefore, taken steps to procure the information from the concerned authority. Respondent No.2 ultimately furnished the requisite information to the petitioner only on 06.07.2020. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner supplied the information to respondent No.3 on 07.07.2020. 7. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is material for determining whether the delay in furnishing the information can be attributed to him so as to attract the penal consequences under Section 20(1) of the Act. The statutory scheme itself recognizes that penalty can be imposed where the failure is without reasonable cause. Therefore, mere delay by itself cannot be considered in isolation from the explanation furnished by the Public Information Officer and the steps taken by him in discharge of his statutory duties. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record sufficient material to demonstrate that he had taken prompt and continuous steps for obtaining the information from respondent No.2. The delay occurred essentially at the stage when the information was awaited from respondent No.2. Significantly, once the information was received, the petitioner furnished the same to respondent No.3 without any further avoidable delay. 9. This aspect of the matter, specifically raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice, was required to be duly considered by respondent No.1 while determining whether the petitioner had acted reasonably and diligently. It is also relevant that the petitioner ultimately supplied the information free of cost to respondent No.3, immediately 5 after receiving it from respondent No.2. Thus, the material on record does not disclose any deliberate withholding of information, mala fide intention, or obstruction on the part of the petitioner. 10.In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has satisfactorily demonstrated that he had taken timely steps for obtaining the information and that, immediately upon receipt of the information from respondent No.2, he furnished the same to respondent No.3. The delay, therefore, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be said to be attributable to any deliberate or unreasonable conduct on the part of the petitioner so as to warrant imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. 11.Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.05.2022, whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, suffers from non-consideration of the material facts and the explanation furnished by the petitioner and cannot be sustained. 12.Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.05.2022 passed by respondent No.1 imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Priyanka