1 CGHC010127072024 2026:CGHC:40810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2140 of 2024 Gunamani Bhoy S/o Harivansh Bhoy, Aged About 54 Years, earlier Posted as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, Distt. Raigarh Cum Public Information Officer, Presently Working as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Chhichhorumariya, Block Pusoure, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through State Information Commission, Sector 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appellate Authority Cum District Education Officer, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - D.L. Patel, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.23 10:48:07 +0530 2 WPC No. 2141 of 2024 Gunamani Bhoy S/o Harivansh Bhoy, Aged About 54 Years, Earlier Posted as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, Distt. Raigarh Cum Public Information Officer, Presently Working as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Chhichhorumariya, Block Pusoure, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Information Commission, Sector 19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - First Appellate Authority Cum District Education Officer, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - D.L. Patel, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2155 of 2024 Gunamani Bhoy S/o Harivansh Bhoy, Aged About 54 Years, Earlier Posted as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, District Raigarh Cum Public Information Officer, Presently Working as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Chhichhorumariya, Block Pusoure, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - First Appellate Authority Cum District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - D.L. Patel Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2125 of 2024 Gunamani Bhoy S/o Harivansh Bhoy, Aged About 54 Years, Earlier Posted as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, District- Raigarh Cum Public Information Officer, Presently Working as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Chhichhorumariya, Block Pusoure, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - First Appellate Authority Cum District Education Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - D.L. Patel, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For Respondent/ Chhattisgarh State Information Commission For Respondent/ State For Respondent/ Information Seeker : : : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Dr. Arham Siddique, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/09/2026 1. The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 2140/2024 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the present batch of matters. 2. This petition is filed against the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in 5 Second Appeal No.A/1109/2020/Raigarh. 3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that Respondent No. 4, who is working as a Lecturer at Govt. Higher Secondary School Padigaon, Block Pusoure, District Raigarh (C.G.), submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”). The petitioner duly supplied the requested information to respondent No. 4. Despite the receipt of information, respondent No. 4 preferred Second Appeal No. A/1883/2019/Raigarh before the State Information Commission, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.04.2021. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 4 preferred another Second Appeal on 27.01.2020. The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 07.03.2023, categorically establishing that the requested information had already been supplied to respondent No. 4. However, the State Information Commission, without observing the mandatory procedure under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, illegally imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner vide the impugned order. The State Information Commission erroneously held that the Public Information Officer (the petitioner herein) failed to act on the RTI application and directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount through the treasury challan. The Commission completely overlooked the fact that action had already been taken and information was duly furnished. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action and order passed by Respondent No. 1 is illegal and 6 malafide. He submits that the State Information Commission passed the impugned order without appreciating the mandatory provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. He submits that the petitioner had duly furnished the requested information to respondent No. 4, however, despite compliance, the State Information Commission erroneously and contrary to the record held that no action was taken by the petitioner on the RTI application. He further submits that respondent No. 4 had earlier preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission regarding the same matter, which was duly disposed of vide order dated 06.04.2021. Therefore, entertaining a subsequent/parallel appeal filed on 27.01.2020 is barred by the principles of res judicata and amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. The impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by Respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction, unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- (Chhattisgarh State Information Commission) submits that respondent No. 4 filed a Second Appeal before the Commission, stating inter alia that he had submitted an application under the RTI Act on 01.12.2018 seeking specific information regarding the functioning, accounts and other connected documents of the concerned School. On receipt of the said application, it was incumbent upon the PIO to deal with the application in accordance with the statutory timeline prescribed under the RTI Act. However, on receipt of the RTI application, the information sought was not 7 furnished by the PIO within a period of 30 days. He submits that thereafter, respondent No. 4 preferred a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 08.01.2019. Due to non-disposal of the First Appeal, Respondent No. 4 availed the statutory remedy of Second Appeal before the Commission, which was registered as Second Appeal No.A/1112/2020/Raigarh. After registration of the Second Appeal, the Commission issued notices dated 20.04.2022 to the PIO and the First Appellate Authority to appear through Video Conferencing on 18.07.2022. He further submits that on 18.07.2022, the matter was taken up for hearing in the presence of both parties. The Present PIO/ Principal submitted written reply before the Commission on 07.03.2023. In the reply, it was submitted that due to subsequent administrative transfers and non-receipt of complete file charge, the RTI file was not immediately available. The Commission considered the explanation but held that administrative transfers or non- availability of records cannot extinguish the statutory obligation cast upon the PIO at the relevant point in time. On 30.10.2023, upon final hearing and examination of the record, the Commission exercised its statutory jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and imposed penalty upon the petitioner for failing to discharge the statutory obligation within the prescribed time limit. He submits that with regard to the petitioner's plea that information was subsequently supplied to respondent No. 4, subsequent compliance does not automatically condone or erase the statutory default already committed nor does it absolve the 8 PIO of consequences under Section 20(1) unless reasonable cause is shown. He further submits that regarding the plea of res judicata based on the order dated 06.04.2021 in Second Appeal No. A/1883/2019/Raigarh, the same is misconceived, as the present Second Appeal (No. A/1112/2020/Raigarh) filed on 27.01.2020 precedes the said order and arises out of a distinct procedural trail. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition(s). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition(s). 7. Evidently, the Respondent/Information Seeker has repeatedly filed multiple RTI applications seeking different information from the petitioner/PIO. It further transpires that upon not receiving a response from the PIO, respondent No.4 preferred a First Appeal(s) before the First Appellate Authority. However, prior to the adjudication of the First Appeal, respondent No.4 preferred a Second Appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. Ordinarily, a Second Appeal preferred without exhausting the statutory remedy before the First Appellate Authority or without awaiting the expiry of the prescribed time limit is procedurally defective and non-maintainable. However, keeping in view that the proceedings have remained pending since 2024 and the Second Appellate Authority has already adjudicated the matters on merits while imposing penalties upon the petitioner in all four cases, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the writ petitions on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. On a perusal of the 9 record and the impugned orders passed by the State Information Commission (Second Appellate Authority), it is evident that the Commission has failed to record any finding showing that the petitioner/Public Information Officer acted with mala fide intent or deliberate neglect in failing to furnish the information sought by the information seeker. 8. In the matter of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14, it has been categorically held that unless and until a finding is recorded under Section 20(1) of the Act, that the PIO acted without reasonable cause, defaulted or harboured malafide intent in not providing the information within time, no penalty can be legally sustained. In the present case, no such finding of mala fide intent or deliberate default has been recorded against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned orders in the all the writ petitions, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner, is legally unsustainable and deserve to be quashed on this sole ground alone. 9. Consequently, the impugned orders, so far as it relates to imposition of penalty, in each of the petitions are quashed. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, all the Writ Petitions are finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay l