1 CGHC010260052024 2026:CGHC:40820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3978 of 2024 Ram Avatar Dohre, S/o. Late Shri Dujuram Dohre Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Seed Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd., Seed Processing Centre, Maroud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur - 492002 (C.G.) 2 - The State Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur - 492002 (C.G.) 3 - Shri Gajendra Kumar Sahu R/o. Ward No. 3, Doundee, Ranitarai Road, Post - Tatenga, Tehsil - Lohara, District Balod (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 WPC No. 3985 of 2024 Ram Avatar Dohre S/o Late Shri Dujuram Dohre Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Seed Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. Seed Processing Centre, Maroud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through It Is Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur- 492002 Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur-492002 Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Gajendra Kumar Sahu Resident Of Ward No. 3, Sahupara, Ranitarai Road, Post Tatenga, Tehsil Lohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3979 of 2024 Ram Avatar Dohre S/o Late Shri Dujuram Dohre Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Seed Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. Seed Processing Centre, Maroud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) 3 Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector-19 North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, 492002 Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector- 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur- 492002 Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Gajendra Kumar Sahu Resident Of Ward No. 3, Sahupara, Ranitarai Road, Post Tatenga, Tehsil Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Chhattisgarh State Information Commission : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 ; None present, despite service of notice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18.09.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3978 of 2024, seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to 4 Complain Case No. C/1020/2022 from respondent No. 1 for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Information Commissioner in Complain Case No. C/1020/2022. 10.3 To order the cost of the petition.” 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3979 of 2024, seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to Complain Case No. C/1018/2022 from respondent No. 1 for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Information Commissioner in Complain Case No. C/1018/2022. 10.3 To order the cost of the petition.” 5 3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3985 of 2024, seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to Complain Case No. C/1019/2022 from respondent No. 1 for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Informatin Commissioner in Complain Case No. C/1019/2022. 10.3 To order the cost of the petition.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by respondent No. 3- Gajendra Kumar Sahu, was directed to be inspected/perused in the office itself; however, the information seeker/respondent No. 3 initially failed to appear for such inspection. Subsequently, on 15.02.2024, he appeared before the Public Information Officer and perused the relevant documents. After inspecting the documents, he expressed his satisfaction with the information furnished and categorically submitted an application before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission stating that he was satisfied with the documents and that he no longer required copies thereof. He 6 further prayed that the four cases instituted by him before the Commission be closed. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the aforesaid communication/application submitted by the information seeker before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, no order of penalty could have been imposed upon the Public Information Officer/petitioner. However, without considering the aforesaid subsequent development, the State Information Commissioner has imposed a penalty upon the petitioner on the ground that the information had not been supplied within a period of 30 days prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act of 2005”). It is contended that the said order of penalty is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 5. It is further submitted that once the information seeker had inspected and perused the documents in the office premises and had expressed his satisfaction with the same, while categorically stating that he no longer required the documents and praying for closure of the four complaint cases, the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission ought to have taken the said development into consideration. Learned counsel submits that the Commission had no authority in law to proceed with the imposition of penalty in the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 7 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission submits that, perhaps, the aforesaid documents were not brought to the notice of the State Information Commissioner; otherwise, such an order may not have been passed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the information seeker deliberately pursued the appeal and continued with the same even after submitting the letter dated 15.02.2024, whereby he had categorically stated that he was satisfied with the documents and no longer required the same. Learned counsel submits that there was no fault on the part of the State Information Commissioner, as the aforesaid communication/ documents were not placed before him for consideration. However, in view of the fact that the information seeker has himself stated that he is satisfied with the documents and no longer requires the same, it is submitted that an appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, especially the letter dated 15.02.2024 submitted by the information seeker/respondent No. 3 before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 is not sustainable in law. From the contents of the said letter, it is evident that the information seeker had inspected and perused the documents and had categorically expressed his satisfaction with the same. He had further 8 requested that the proceedings initiated by him before the Commission be closed. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the imposition of penalty upon the Public Information Officer/petitioner, without taking the said communication into consideration, cannot be sustained. 8. The aforesaid document goes to show that, in fact, the petitioner/Public Information Officer has bonafidely acted upon and due to the aforesaid letter of the Information Seeker, he has not supplied the information. In that view of the matter, no mala fide or intentional act has been committed by the petitioner so as to pass an order imposing a penalty upon the petitioner in view of the judgment passed 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. In fact, action should be taken against the Information Seeker who has suppressed the said vital aspect. 9. Accordingly, all the petitions are hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL