1 2026:CGHC:17063 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 647 of 2021 1 - Nitin Singhvi S/o Late N.C. Singhvi Aged About 59 Years R/o Hig 3, Sector 03, Shankar Nagar, Raipur , Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Secretary, Sector 19, North Block , Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Purshottam Markande Assistant Public Information Officer , Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development , Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 15.04.2026 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the State Information Commission, Chhattisgarh, whereby though a direction has been issued for furnishing information to the petitioner, the Commission has declined to impose penalty upon Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Public Information Officer). 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, claiming to be an environmental activist, sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the RTI Act”) vide application dated 21.02.2019 in relation to proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 109/2008 (Wildlife First & Others vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others) pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said request was declined by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court and further by referring to Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a first appeal; however, according to the petitioner, no effective relief was granted. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission, vide impugned order dated 09.09.2020, held that the information sought did not fall within the exemption under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act and directed that information be supplied to the petitioner. However, the Commission declined to impose penalty under Section 20 of 3 the RTI Act upon Respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order to the limited extent of non- imposition of penalty and seeking imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon Respondent No. 2. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to the set aside the impugned order to the extent that the penalty has not been imposed and the Hon'ble Court may kindly impose penalty of Rs. 25000 upon the Respondent no.2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the State Information Commission has recorded a finding that denial of information was unjustified, it was incumbent upon the Commission to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that there was delay in furnishing the information and no reasonable cause was assigned by Respondent No. 2. Hence, the ingredients of Section 20 stood satisfied. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Mujibur Rehman vs. Central Information Commission [2009 SCC Online Del 1149] to contend that in absence of reasonable cause, imposition of penalty is mandatory. 4 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the power to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act is discretionary in nature and depends upon the satisfaction of the Commission regarding absence of reasonable cause and existence of malafides. It is further submitted that in the present case, the denial of information was based on a bona fide understanding that the matter was sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore the Commission has rightly exercised its discretion in not imposing penalty. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is just and proper and calls for no interference, as Respondent No. 2 had denied the information under a bona fide belief that the matter being sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was exempt from disclosure. It is contended that mere erroneous interpretation of Section 8(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not automatically attract penalty under Section 20, in absence of any malafide or lack of reasonable cause. It is further submitted that the Commission, after due consideration, has rightly exercised its discretion in not imposing penalty, and in absence of any arbitrariness or perversity, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 8. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ought to interfere with the discretion exercised by the State Information Commission in declining to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. 9. In this case, it is not disputed that Respondent No. 2 denied the information stating that the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and referred to Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Although the State Information Commission later held that this reason was not legally correct and directed that the information be given, it also noted that the Officer had acted using his discretion. There is nothing on record to show that the information was denied with bad intention or deliberately. The reason given by the Officer, though incorrect in law, cannot be said to be completely unreasonable so as to require penalty. 10. In this regard, reference may be made to 2019 SCC OnLine CLC 1054 Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. Central Public Information Officer, Dy. Land & Development Officer, New Delhi wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “6. However, regarding the issue of imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held: 6 “61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They 7 would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.” 7. Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC WP (C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter: “17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.” 9. The Commission also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, 8 CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated on the correctness of an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that: “2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash : ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under………. 3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion.” 11. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not replace the decision of a statutory authority unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or against the law. In the present case, the decision of the State Information Commission not to impose penalty is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Therefore, no interference is required. 9 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha