CHHOTE LAL PATEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010373082023 2026:CGHC:38624
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHYNA
AJAY
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.09.02
17:22:42 +0530
WPC No. 4803 of 2023
Chhote Lal Patel S/o Shri Late Shri Garjan Lal Patel, Aged 45 Years, The Then
Public Information Officer Cum Secretary Of Gram Panchayat- Devrani, Block-
Bamnhidih, Dist. - Janjgir-Champa, C.G., Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat-
Basantpur, Block- Bamnhidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Sector-19, North Block, Naya
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bamnhidih, District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Sharad Dewangan, Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near- Carrier
School, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate
For Respective
: Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate and Ms.
Respondents
Priyanka Rai, Advocate

2
S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
01/09/2026
1. This petition is filed against the impugned order dated 8.6.2023
passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in
Second Appeal No.A/2116/2020/Raigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as the
Secretary of Gram Panchayat -Devrani at the relevant time when
respondent No. 4 preferred an application under Section 6(1) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the
RTI Act"). The said application was addressed to the Public
Information Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block-Bamnhidih. Under
the aforementioned application, respondent No. 4 sought
information regarding the Grant Register ( Anudan Register)
prepared and maintained by the Gram Panchayat for the period
from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. As per the order sheets of the
State Information Commission, the petitioner initially could not
supply the information sought by respondent No. 4. Therefore,
respondent No. 4 preferred a First Appeal before respondent No.
3. Upon the passing of the order by respondent No. 3 (First
Appellate Authority), the petitioner duly supplied the requisite
information for the relevant years to respondent No. 4.
Notwithstanding the fact that the required information had already

3
been furnished, respondent No. 4 preferred a Second Appeal
before the State Information Commission after an inordinate and
unexplained delay. Thereafter, the State Information Commission
issued notice to the petitioner. However, while passing the
impugned order dated 8.6.2023, the State Information
Commission failed to take cogent notice of the material fact that
the information sought had already been supplied to respondent
No. 4. Furthermore, the Commission proceeded to impose a
maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner under
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act without condoning the threshold delay
in filing the Second Appeal, and without entering into the merits or
recording any finding of mala fide intent against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in complete
disregard of the statutory procedure mandated under Section
20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”),
the impugned penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner
without recording any finding of malafide intent on the part of the
Public Information Officer. He submits that prior to levying any
penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the State Information
Commission is required to record a categorical finding that the
failure to supply information was attributable to a deliberate,
conscious and malafide act of the Public information Officer. In
the absence of such explicit finding, no penalty can be sustained
in law. In support of these contentions, learned counsel places
reliance on the judgment dated 12.6.2023 passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in WA No.215/2020 as well as the recent order

4
dated 10.8.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.5304/2026.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-State Information
Commission submits that the conduct of the Public Information
Officer demonstrably reveals a deliberate and conscious failure to
supply the relevant documents sought by the information seeker.
He contends that such malafide intent is plainly discernible from
the fact of the record itself. Hence, the omission to record an
explicit or formal finding to that effect in the impugned order does
not vitiate the proceedings nor does it warrant any interference by
this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
6.
Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the imposition of penalty or a
recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical
finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate
and malafide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a
finding is recorded in the order supported by cogent reasons, the
imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law.
7. This Court cannot override the statutory mandates contained in
the RTI Act, 2005. Where the statute specifically prescribes a pre-
condition for imposition of penalty, any mere presumption or
inference drawn by the State Information Commission without a
recorded finding is irrelevant and impermissible.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that no reasons or findings have been recorded by the State
Information Commission to establish that the information was

5
withheld owing to any malafide intent, deliberate delay or ill motive
on the part of the Public Information Officer.
9.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 8.6.2023 to the extent it
imposes penalty on the petitioner, is hereby set-aside.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally
disposed of. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay