Order on Board

06.05.2026

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.A/3354/2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘RTI Act, 2005’) has been allowed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or considering his reply, and he has been held guilty of denial of information with a direction to furnish the same within 30 days at his own cost. The petitioner further challenges the initiation of proceedings under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, including issuance of show cause notice proposing imposition of maximum penalty and recommendation for disciplinary action, contending that such proceedings have been initiated mechanically without any prior determination of misconduct. It is submitted that the matter now being fixed only for penalty proceedings on 14.11.2022 is arbitrary and unsustainable, warranting interference by this Court. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ and set aside the order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.: 2 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, has been allowed without affording minimum opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in utter violation of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and of natural justice.

10.2 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and in gross violation of the settled principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner, being a Public Information Officer, had duly furnished a reasoned reply dated 05.07.2021 to the RTI application dated 24.06.2021, clearly stating that the information sought was vague and non-specific, as no particular work or transaction was identified, and therefore, in terms of Section 2(f) read with Section 6(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, the same could not be supplied. The First Appellate Authority, upon due consideration, had also upheld the said position by a speaking order dated 22.10.2021. It is further submitted that despite the above, in the second appeal, the State Information Commission, on the very first date of hearing i.e., 07.09.2022, proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to furnish the information within 30 days, fastened financial liability upon him, and simultaneously initiated proceedings under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such action, it is urged, is in flagrant violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem, as no notice or effective opportunity was granted before recording adverse findings entailing serious civil consequences.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the direction to disclose the cheque drawn register is itself unsustainable, as the information sought is not only vague but also falls within the ambit of exempted information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, involving commercial confidence and third-party interests, and no larger public interest has been demonstrated by respondent No.2.

4. Reliance has further been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (WA No.215/2020 decided on 12.06.2023), wherein it has been categorically held that imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is not automatic and can be sustained only upon a clear finding of malafide denial or unreasonable delay without sufficient cause. It is submitted that the said judgment fortifies the petitioner’s case inasmuch as, in the present matter, there is neither any deliberate withholding of information nor any contu