1 2026:CGHC:19580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2904 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Its Public Information Officer, Paryawas Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Constituted Under The Provisions Of The Environment Conservation Act. Through Public Information Officer, Paryawas Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh ... petitioners versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Secretary, Sector-19, North Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 492002 2 - The State Chief Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002 3 - Shri Nitin Singhvi R/o Mig 59, Sector I, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Syed Jayad Ziya Ali, Adv. along with Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Adv. through video conferencing Mr. Aryan Mishra, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.02.2021 RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.04.29 16:54:01 +0530 2 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur, in Complaint Case No.C/266/2019. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, respondent No.3 filed an application (Annexure P-2) on 22.03.2018 before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (for short “CECB”) (wrongly mentioned as ‘CEPB’ in the said application) seeking certain documents/guidelines. The PIO, vide order (Annexure P-3) dated 26.03.2018, informed respondent No.3 that their department did not possess such information/document, and that he may seek the same from the Government. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed an appeal Annexure-P/4 before the Appellate Authority of CECB, which was decided vide order dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure-P/6) with the consent of both parties that the application filed by respondent No.3 seeking aforesaid information shall be transferred to the State Government. However, respondent No.3 was not provided the information by the State Government, thereafter, he filed complaint (Annexure P-8) dated 21.02.2019 to the Chief Information Commissioner/respondent No.2 stating that information sought from the State has not been provided. Based on the said complaint, the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (for short “CSIC) registered Complaint Case No.C/266/2019, and after making complaint by respondent No.3, the Chhattisgarh State Housing and Environment Department (hereinafter referred to as “CSHED”) provided information to respondent No.3 on 05.03.2019 after receiving fee Rs.30/- payable under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as “RTI Act”) from respondent No.3. Despite that, the State Information Commissioner, vide impugned order, held that since information has 3 not been provided to respondent No.3 within a period of 30 days as provided under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, whereas he is entitled to get information free of cost, hence the State has suffered financial loss. Therefore, the State Information Commissioner directed to recover such financial loss from the concerned PIO of CECB. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since application filed by the respondent No.3 was transferred by the Appellate Authority with his consent within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, and even information was provided to the respondent No.3 by the State on 05.03.2019, therefore, if there was any delay, then it was caused by the CSHED. Despite that, penalty has been imposed against petitioners without providing them due opportunity of hearing, which is perverse and illegal. Hence, he prays that the petition may be allowed and the impugned order, to the extent of imposing penalty against the petitioners, may be quashed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 supported the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also supported the impugned order. 7. Perusal of facts projected by the petitioners and mentioned in the documents annexed with the writ petition shows that PIO of CECB passed the order within 4 days from the date of receipt of the application. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed an appeal on 09.04.2018, which was decided consensually vide Annexure-P/6 dated 24.04.2018, i.e., within 30 days from the date of filing of appeal. Since the information/document sought by respondent No.3 was not available 4 with the petitioners, therefore the application filed by respondent No.3 was sent to the CSHED vide order Annexure-P/6 dated 24.04.2018 with his consent. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 was provided information/document by the CSHED on 05.03.2019. Thus, if there was any delay in providing information to respondent No.3, it was occurred by CSHED. No delay is found on the part of petitioners, i.e., the PIO and the Appellate Authority of CECB, despite that, penalty has been imposed against them. Further, the impugned order does not reflect that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before imposing penalty. 8. In view of the above, since no delay was caused by petitioners in deciding application filed by respondent No.3, and the impugned order has been passed without providing a due opportunity of hearing to the petitoners, therefore the order impugned (Annexure P-1), insofar as it relates to the imposition of penalty on petitioners, suffers from grave perversity and illegality, hence the same is set-aside to the extent imposing penalty against petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar