RADHIKA SIDAR vs CHHATTISGARH STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,

1

CGHC010127192024 2026:CGHC:39042
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2353 of 2024
Radhika Sidar W/o Kedarnath Sidar, Aged About 34 Years R/o Pussore, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through State Chief Information
Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk,-
Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
2 - State Information Commissioner, 1st Floor, Indrawati Khand, Shashtri Chowk-
Motibagh Chowk Rd, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
3 - First Appeal Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pussore, District
Raigarh (C.G.)
4 - Akash Bairagi, S/o Parasmani Bairagi Aged About 44 Years R/o Gobrsingha
Sariya Tahsil And Post Barmkela District - Raigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate
For Respondent
: Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate
No.1
S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Digitally
signed by
SHYNA
AJAY
Date:
2026.09.05
11:51:28
+0530
SHYNA
Order on Board
AJAY

2
03/09/2026
1.
This petition is filed against the impugned order dated 7.11.2023
passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in
Second Appeal No.C/2215/2022/Raigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are rrespondent No. 4 submitted an
application dated 25.1.2022 under Section 6(1) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act')
seeking information regarding the achievements, goals, debit and
credit account statements, bank statements of funds, list of ODPF
declared villages under the Gram Panchayat, and certified copies
of beneficiary utility certificates from the Financial Year 2014-15 to
2020-21 of Gram Panchayat Pachheda, Subsequently,
respondent No. 4 filed a First Appeal on 15.03.2022 before the
First Appellate Authority, alleging that the petitioner had refused to
provide the requested information. Respondent No. 4 also filed a
complaint alleging that the First Appellate Authority failed to pass
an order on the appeal, thereby requesting proceedings under
Section 18 of the RTI Act. Respondent No. 4, being dissatisfied
with the non-disposal of the First Appeal, filed a Second Appeal
before the State Information Commission, registered as Second
Appeal Case No. C/2215/2022/Raigarh. The petitioner came to
know about the pendency of the said proceedings at a later stage,
wherein by order dated 18.01.2023, a show-cause notice was

3
issued calling for a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner
appeared before Respondent No.1 and stated that the RTI
application in question was never served upon or received by her,
due to which the requested information could not be furnished in
time. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply clarifying this non-
receipt on 30.10.2023. Respondent No. 2, vide impugned order
dated 07.11.2023 erroneously held that information was withheld
without reasonable cause and imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/-
upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
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
petitioner/Public Information Officer. He submits that the petitioner
committed no deliberate act to withhold the information sought.
4.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-State Information
Commission submits that the impugned order was passed by the
Commission after issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner
and receipt of the reply, which does not 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

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.
7. 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.
Unless malafide intent and deliberate non-compliance are firmly
established by the State Information Commission, a principle well
settled 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 penalty cannot be sustained.
8.
Consequently, the Petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 7.11.2023 imposing penalty on the petitioner, is hereby set-
aside.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally
disposed of. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay