PUNIRAM BURMAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010368712023 2026:CGHC:39200
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4835 of 2023
Puniram Burman S/o Late Shri Changuram Burman, Age- 53 Years, Then Public
Information Officer of Gram Panchayat Rohada, Block Bamnhidih, Dist. Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
Presently posted as Secretary of Gram Panchayat – Sodhi, Block Bamnhidih,
District Janjgir-Champa (CG)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat and Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Naya
Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)
3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bamnhidih, Dist. Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
4 - Sharad Dewangan, Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier
School, Raigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Md. Arman Memon, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Syed Majid Ali, Advocate
For Respective
: Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate, Mr.
Respondents
Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate and Mr. Amit Nayak,
Panel Lawyer
Digitally
signed by
SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.09.08
17:19:16
+0530
SHYNA
AJAY

2
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
07/09/2026
1.
This petition is filed against the impugned order dated 2.6.2023
passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in
Second Appeal No.A/2087/2020/Raigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner was posted as the
Secretary of Gram Panchayat Rohada. Respondent No. 4 filed an
application dated 30.08.2019 under Section 6(1) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”) before the Public
Information Officer/CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Block Bamnhidih,
seeking copies of the Grant Register prepared and maintained by
Gram Panchayat Rohada for the period from 01.04.2012 to
31.03.2019. Although the RTI application was originally addressed
to the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, it was forwarded to Gram
Panchayat Rohada after an unaccounted delay of 10 days.
However, the petitioner never received the subject application, as
a result of which the requested information could not be supplied
initially. Aggrieved by the non-receipt of information, respondent
No.4 preferred a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority-
cum-CEO, Janpad Panchayat. Taking cognizance of the appeal,
the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to supply the
information. The petitioner fully complied with this order and
provided the requested information to respondent No.4 . Despite
having already received the required information, respondent No.4

3
filed a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, ,
with a substantial delay. Ultimately, the State Information
Commission passed the impugned order imposing a penalty of
Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner without condoning the significant
delay in filing the appeal or deciding the matter on its merits.
Hence, this petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed without complying with Section 20(1) of
the RTI Act and without recording a finding that the information as
sought by the information seeker was withheld with malafide intent
and deliberately. As such, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/Chhattisgarh
State Information Commission submits that an opportunity of
hearing was duly granted to the petitioner by issuing a show
cause notice prior to imposition of penalty. As such, the ground
raised by the petitioner is not available to him.
5.
Learned counsel for the respondent/Information Seeker submits
that the information sought has already been received and he
has no objection if this Court considers this aspect and disposes
of the matter accordingly.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. 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

4
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.
8. Considering the fact that the petitioner-Public Information Officer
has already furnished the information, it is evident that there was
no malafide or ill intention on his part. Further, the impugned
penalty was imposed upon the petitioner without recording any
finding of malafide intent or deliberate act to withhold the
information. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2012) 13
SCC 14 ,, the present Petition deserves to be allowed for two
reasons, firstly because no deliberate or malafide default is borne
out by the record and secondly, because the information sought
has already been supplied to the satisfaction of the Information
Seeker.
9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 2.6.2023, so far as it
relates to the petitioner imposing penalty on him, is hereby set-
aside.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay