RITU SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010368682023 2026:CGHC:45806
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4823 of 2023
SHYNA
AJAY
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.10.29
19:18:22 +0530
Sevak Ram Kashyap S/o Shri Tikaram Kashyap, Aged About 37 Years
Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Semariya, Janpad
Panchayat Or Block Bamnhidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And
Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, 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, Shriram Colony Behind Beladula Stadium, Near
Carrier School Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)

2
WPC No. 3986 of 2024
Chandramani Ratre S/o Kirit Ram Ratre, Aged About 36 Years
Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat- Bhadra, Janpad
Panchayat- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And
Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, 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, Pamgarh, District-
Janjgir-Champa ('C.G.)
4 - Nilesh Kumar Sahu, Head Office- Saathi Chhattisgarh, (News
Paper), Bti Sqaure, Near Bdm Baaluddyaan, Janjgir, District Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3975 of 2024
Chandramani Ratre S/o Kirit Ram Patre Aged About 36 Years Presently
Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat- Bhadra, Janpad Panchyat-
Pamgarh, Dist- Janjgir- Champa ( C.G.).
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, ( C.G.).
2 - Chhattisgarh Sate Information Commission Sector- 19, North Block,
Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar ( C.G.).

3
3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, Dist- Janjgir-
Champa ( C.G.).
4 - Nilesh Kumar Sahu, Head Office- Saathi Chhattisgarh, ( News
Paper ), Bti Sqaure, Near Bdm Baaluddyaan, Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir-
Champa ( C.G.).
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3964 of 2024
Chandramani Ratre S/o Kirit Ram Ratre, Aged About 36 Years
Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat- Bhadra, Janpad
Panchayat- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
--- 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, Pamgarh, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
4 - Nilesh Kumar Sahu, Head Office- Saathi Chhattisgarh (News
Paper), Bti Sqaure, Near Bdm Baaluddyaan, Janjgir, District Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)

4
WPC No. 3963 of 2024
Chandramani Ratre, S/o. Kirit Ram Ratre Aged About 36 Years Posted
As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat- Bhadra, Janpad Panchayat-
Pamgarh, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And
Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bahvan, 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, Pamgarh, Dist.- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
4 - Nilesh Kumar Sahu Head Office- Saathi Chhattisgarh, (News
Paper), Bti Square, Near Bdm Baaluddyaan, Janjgir, Dist.- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3941 of 2024
Chandramani Ratre S/o Kirit Ram Ratre Aged About 36 Years Presently
Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat- Bhadra, Janpad Panchayat-
Pamgarh, 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

5
3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4 - Nilesh Kumar Sahu Head Office- Saathi Chhattisgarh, (News
Paper), B.T.I. Square, Near B.D.M. Baaluddyaan, Janjgir, District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2452 of 2024
Bhuvan Lal Kumhar S/o Shri Sudama Prasad Kumhar Aged About 40
Years R/o Village Karnoud, Block Bamnhidih, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh Then Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Naktidih, Block -
Bamnhidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And
Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector -19, North
Block, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4 - Sharad Dewangan, S/o Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium,
Near Carrier School, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)

6
PC No. 2162 of 2024 W
Ritu Soni W/o Shri Shankar Lal Swarnkar, Aged About 31 Years Public
Information Officer Of Gram Panchayat-Junadih, Block- Baloda, District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And
Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block,
Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (Cg)
3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda, District Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
4 - Sharad Dewangan, Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium,
Near- Carrier School, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 496001
--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate
For Respective
: Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani,
Respondents
Advocate, Mr. Abhiyuday Tripathi, Mr.
Aniruddh Shrivastava and Ms. Akansha
Verma, Advocate
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board

29/10/2026

7

1. Since common questions of fact and grievance arise in this batch
of writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this
common order, so as to avoid conflicting or anomalous findings
by this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, WPC No.4823/2023 is being
treated as the lead case and the facts of the said petition are
being referred to for the purpose of adjudication. The decision
rendered herein, shall, however, govern the connected Writ
Petitions as well.
3. This petition (WPC No.4823/2023) is filed against the impugned
order dated 8.6.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State
Information Commission in Second Appeal
No.A/2117/2020/Raigarh.
4. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner is serving as the
Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Semariya. On 30.08.2019,
Respondent No. 4 submitted an application under Section 6(1) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”),
addressed to the Public Information Officer/Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block Bamnhidih, seeking copies of
the Grant Register ( Anudan Register ) maintained by the Gram
Panchayat for the financial years 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019
(Annexure P/2). Since the application was vague and lacked

8
clarity, the petitioner duly communicated the inability to process it
to Respondent No. 4. Against the same, Respondent No.4
preferred a First Appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-CEO,
Janpad Panchayat, but the said appeal was disposed of being
unrepresented by Respondent No.4. Thereafter, Respondent No.
4 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information
Commission, to which the petitioner filed a reply (Annexure P-5).
However, vide the impugned order (Annexure P/1), the State
Information Commission directed the disclosure of information
and imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner, without
condoning the delay or considering the case on its merits.
5. Mr. Pallav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information
Commission is not in accordance with law, as the mandatory prior
notice and opportunity of hearing under Section 20 of the RTI Act
were not afforded to the petitioner before imposing the penalty.
Furthermore, the State Information Commission failed to record
any finding of mala fide intent, deliberate obstruction or conscious
default on the part of the petitioner/Public Information Officer. He
further submits that the information sought by the information
seeker has already been supplied to him.
6. Per contra, Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent– State Information Commission
submits that the impugned order was passed in compliance with
the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate under

9
Section 20 of the RTI Act. He submits that a show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner prior to the imposition of penalty.
However, the petitioner failed to submit any reply or offer any
reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the impugned order(s)
suffers from no illegality and does not warrant any interference by
this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
8. 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.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that there is a complete absence of malafide or
deliberate failure on the part of the Public Information Officer. It is
a well settled principle of law that unless malafide intent and
deliberate non-compliance are firmly established, a penalty under
Section 20 of the RTI Act cannot be imposed, as held 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. In the absence of any finding of deliberate
non-compliance or bad faith, the impugned order(s) imposing
penalty cannot be sustained in law.

10
10. Consequently, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the
impugned orders in all the Writ Petitions, so far as it relates to
the petitioners, are hereby set-aside.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay