DHANANJAY OGREY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010368532023 2026:CGHC:38625
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4818 of 2023
Dhananjay Ogrey, Presently Posted As Secretary Of Gram Panchayat - Katghari,
Janpad Panchayat or Block Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
The then Public Information Officer of Gram Panchayat Kadhari, Block Bamnhidih,
District Janjgir-Champa (CG)
... 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 - Sharda Dewangan, Shri Ram Colony, Behind Beladula Stadium, Near Carrier
School, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate
For Respective
: Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate and
Respondents
Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate
Digitally
signed by
SHYNA
AJAY
Date:
2026.09.05
11:13:50
+0530
SHYNA
AJAY

2
S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
01/09/2026
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 8.6.2023 passed by the State Information Commission in
Second Appeal No.A/2115/2020/Raigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that at
the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working and posted
as the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kadhari, Bamnhidih During his
tenure, respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 6(1) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the RTI Act”),
addressed to the Public Information Officer, Janpad Panchayat,
Block Bamnhidih (Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat). By
way of the said application dated 30.08.2019, respondent No. 4
sought information/documents pertaining to the Grant Register
( Anudan Register ) maintained by the Gram Panchayat for the
period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. The said application was
defective as the Indian Postal Order submitted therewith was not
drawn in favor of/addressed to the office of Public Information
Officer. Consequently, the application could not be entertained
and the defect was duly communicated to respondent No. 4.
Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.4 preferred a First Appeal
before the Appellate Authority-cum-CEO, Janpad Panchayat.

3
However, the said appeal was dismissed/disposed of due to non-
appearance of respondent No.4. Subsequently, respondent No. 4
preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information
Commission, Naya Raipur, after an inordinate delay. The State
Information Commission, vide its impugned order dated 8.6.2023
directed the disclosure of the requested information and arbitrarily
imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner. The
Commission passed the said order without condoning the gross
delay and without considering the case on merits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information
sought by respondent No.4 under the RTI Act was duly supplied
within the prescribed statutory period of 30 days. He submits that
respondent No.4 has falsely asserted that the information was not
provided, deliberately suppressing the fact of receipt. Therefore,
no penalty or adverse order under the Act could have been
imposed against the petitioner. He further submits that that there
is violation of principles of natural justice while passing the
impugned order. The ingredients of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act,
2005 were not satisfied before imposing penalty upon the
petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective
respondents submit that the order has rightly been passed, which
warrant no interference by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, particularly the impugned orders.

4
6. The power to impose penalty or recommend disciplinary action
under Section 20 of the RTI Act can be exercised only after the
Commission records its satisfaction, on the basis of the material
available and after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to
the Public Information Officer, that the conditions contemplated
under the said provisions are satisfied. In the present case, the
Commission, while directing supply of the information,
simultaneously proceeded to impose maximum penalty without
recording any specific finding regarding a deliberate or malafide
denial of information attributable to the petitioner. Such a
procedure is contrary to the statutory scheme as well as the
principles of natural justice.
7. Accordingly, while the direction contained in the impugned order
dated 08.06.2023 requiring the petitioner to furnish the information
sought by respondent No. 4 is upheld, the part of the impugned
order whereby penalty has been imposed on the petitioner under
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, without affording a reasonable
opportunity of hearing, is hereby set aside.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge
Shyna Ajay