TIKAM CHAND VERMA vs CHHATTISGARH STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

1

CGHC010230772021 2026:CGHC:39347
Digitally signed
by YOGESH
TIWARI
Date: 2026.09.08
17:26:05 +0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3857 of 2021
Tikam Chand Verma S/o Shri Duhai Lal Verma Aged About 46 Years
Working As Panchayat Secretary And Public Information Officer, Gram
Panchayat Bharda Kala, Janpad Panchayat , Saja , R/o Village Bharda
Kala, Post Bargada, Tehsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Chief
Information Commissioner, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - State Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Information
Commissioner, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Mohan Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years, Gram Panchayat Bharda
Kala Janpad Panchayat , Saja , R/o Village Bharda Kala, Post Bargada,
Tehsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Father’s name not known
to the petitioner, hence it is not mentioned).
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Shashwat Rai, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani,
Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
08.09.2026
1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned
order dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2/State
Information Commissioner, whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has

2
been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) for alleged failure to
furnish the information sought by respondent No.3 within the
stipulated period. The petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call the records of case from the
respondent authorities.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby
setting-aside/quashing the impugned order
dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent no.
2.
10.3 That any other relief/order which may
deem fit and just in the facts and
circumstances of the case including award of
the cost of the petition may be given.”
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner, who was working as the Public Information
Officer/Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bharda Kala, had received
the application seeking information on 14.07.2018 and not on
05.07.2018, as has been recorded by the respondent-authority. It
is submitted that, immediately upon processing the application,
the petitioner informed respondent No.3 that the information
sought comprised approximately 600 pages and, therefore, the
requisite additional fee of Rs.1,200/- was required to be deposited
for supply of the photocopies.

3
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that respondent No.3,
without depositing the requisite fee, preferred a first appeal before
the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saja, which was
dismissed by order dated 24.10.2018 after affording opportunity of
hearing to the concerned parties. It is further submitted that, in the
proceedings before the State Information Commission, the
petitioner had specifically placed on record his reply stating that
the application had been received on 14.07.2018 and that
respondent No.3 had not deposited the requisite fee despite being
informed thereof. Learned counsel submits that the Chief
Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saja had also placed on
record a similar position before the Commission.
4. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the subsequent direction of
the State Information Commission, the information was duly
furnished to respondent No.3. Learned senior counsel, therefore,
submits that there was neither any deliberate withholding of
information nor any mala fide intention on the part of the
petitioner, who was discharging his duties as the Public
Information Officer. The imposition of the maximum penalty of
Rs.25,000/- under Section 20 of the Act, according to learned
counsel, is therefore unsustainable in law, particularly when the
petitioner had furnished an explanation disclosing the
circumstances in which the information could not initially be
supplied.

4
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and
2 submits that the petitioner failed to furnish the information within
the period prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act and that the
State Information Commission, upon consideration of the material
available on record, found the petitioner liable for the delay. It is
submitted that the petitioner had demanded an amount of
Rs.1,200/- for furnishing the information, whereas, pursuant to the
subsequent direction of the Commission, only 35 pages of
information were ultimately furnished. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, was under
a statutory obligation to furnish the information within the
prescribed period and, having failed to do so, was rightly
proceeded against under Section 20 of the Act. It is, therefore,
submitted that no interference with the impugned order is
warranted.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. The material on record indicates that respondent No.3 had
submitted the application seeking information on 14.07.2018. The
petitioner, thereafter, vide communication dated 09.08.2018,
informed respondent No.3 that the information sought involved
approximately 600 pages and called upon him to deposit the
requisite additional fee of Rs.1,200/- for obtaining copies thereof.
It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 did not deposit the

5
said amount and instead preferred the first appeal before the
competent authority. The first appellate authority, after hearing the
parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.10.2018,
noticing the failure of respondent No.3 to deposit the requisite fee.
8. It is further borne out from the record that, during the proceedings
before the State Information Commission, the petitioner
specifically explained the circumstances in which the information
had not been furnished earlier. The Chief Executive Officer,
Janpad Panchayat, Saja, also placed a similar factual position
before the Commission. The petitioner thereafter complied with
the direction issued by the Commission and furnished the
information to respondent No.3.
9. The question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner
could have been subjected to the maximum penalty under Section
20 of the Act.
10. Section 20 of the Act empowers the Central or State Information
Commission to impose penalty where the Public Information
Officer, without any reasonable cause, has refused to receive an
application for information, has not furnished the information
within the time specified under Section 7(1), has malafidely
denied the request for information, has knowingly given incorrect,
incomplete or misleading information, or has destroyed
information or obstructed furnishing of information. The provision

6
thus requires consideration of the explanation furnished by the
Public Information Officer and the circumstances leading to the
alleged delay or non-supply of information before the penal
consequence is imposed.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 13 SCC 14 , has
held that the power to impose penalty under Section 20 of the Act
is not to be exercised mechanically and that the authority is
required to consider whether there was reasonable cause for the
failure on the part of the Public Information Officer. In the present
case, the petitioner had furnished an explanation that the
application was received on 14.07.2018, that the information
sought consisted of a substantial number of documents and that
respondent No.3 was informed to deposit the requisite additional
fee for supply of copies. The said explanation was also supported
by the communication dated 09.08.2018. There is further material
on record to indicate that the first appellate authority had also
noticed the non-deposit of the requisite fee by respondent No.3.
12. More importantly, the impugned order does not disclose any
categorical finding, supported by cogent reasons, that the
petitioner had deliberately or malafidely withheld the information
or that his explanation regarding the demand for requisite fee was
wholly untenable. The fact that the petitioner subsequently
furnished the information pursuant to the direction of the

7
Commission also assumes significance while examining the
justification for imposing the maximum penalty.
13. The power under Section 20 of the Act is penal in nature and,
therefore, the circumstances constituting the statutory conditions
for its exercise are required to be examined with due care. Merely
because there has been a delay or an initial failure to furnish
information, the maximum penalty cannot be imposed
mechanically without examining whether the failure was without
reasonable cause.
14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court finds that the petitioner had placed before the State
Information Commission a specific explanation regarding the
circumstances in which the information was not furnished within
the prescribed period. The impugned order, however, does not
satisfactorily deal with the said explanation nor does it record
adequate reasons for concluding that the petitioner was liable to
suffer the maximum penalty under Section 20 of the Act.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar
(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the imposition
of penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner cannot be sustained.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order
dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2, insofar as it
imposes a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner, is hereby

8
set aside. Any consequential direction for recovery of the said
penalty amount shall also stand quashed.
17. At this stage, this Court is of the view that the information in
question has already been supplied by the petitioner pursuant to
the direction issued by the State Information Commission. If
respondent No.3 has not received the said information or if the
same has otherwise not reached him, it would be open for him to
approach the concerned authorities for obtaining the information
so supplied. In such circumstances, no further direction in that
regard is called for in the present petition.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- -
/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh