1 CGHC010086092024 2026:CGHC:40806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1608 of 2024 1 - Dilchand Sahu S/o Budhram Sahu Aged About 44 Years Then Public Information Officer, Gram Panchayat, Jervey, Janpad Panchayat, Kartala, District- Korba, C.G. And Presently Working As A Secretary Of Gram Panchayat, Gidhauri, Janpad Panchayat, Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Aayog Through Its Staff Officer, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Cum-First Appellate Authority, Janpad Panchayat, Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Avon Banjara S/o Mahettar Banjara Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Kurubhata, Post- Naharpali, Tahsil- Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate appears through video conferencing. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ /or writs / order / or orders / to quashed the order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent no. 1, so far as imposing the penalty of Rs. 25000/- is concern, in the interest of justice 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 10.4 An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by the information seeker has already been supplied. The 3 said submission is also supported by learned counsel appearing for the information seeker. She further submits that the penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner without recording any specific finding or assigning any reason to establish that the delay or failure on the part of the Public Information Officer was deliberate or mala fide. It is, therefore, submitted that the imposition of penalty is not in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that once the First Appellate Authority had directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought by the information seeker, and the same was not supplied within the stipulated period, such conduct itself demonstrates that the petitioner had failed to discharge the statutory obligation cast upon him. It is, therefore, submitted that the order imposing penalty has rightly been passed and does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the information seeker, on the other hand, submits that the information sought by him has already been supplied. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Proviso of Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under:- 4 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, particularly, taking into consideration the contents of the impugned order, it appears that no specific finding has been recorded therein to the effect that the Public Information Officer had acted deliberately or mala fide in not furnishing the information within the prescribed period. It is also not in dispute that the information sought by the information seeker has subsequently been supplied. 8. 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 5 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 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 08.09.2023 is required to be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 is hereby set aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat