Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

05/05/2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and set aside the order dated 16.08.2022 and communication letter dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure P/1), as the order, has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief. which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is presently serving as Deputy Conservator of Forest (JFM & Policy Analysis) at Aranya Bhavan, Raipur, and at the relevant point of time in January 2020 was officiating as Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Baloda Bazar; that during such period, respondent No. 2 submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information, to which the petitioner responded by a reasoned communication bearing letter No. 518 dated 11.02.2020, stating that the information sought was vague and not clearly specified; that being aggrieved by the said reply, respondent No. 2 preferred a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act on 03.03.2020 before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order, while granting liberty to respondent No. 2 to submit a fresh application with specific particulars; that thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (respondent No. 1), which, by the impugned order dated 16.08.2022, directed the petitioner to furnish the information within 30 days free of cost, further ordered recovery of expenses at the rate of Rs. 2 per page from the petitioner, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, and also directed initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner; that the said order is assailed as being in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, inasmuch as it was passed without affording any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering his reply; that the impugned order, being conclusive in nature and imposing penal consequences upon the petitioner without due process, is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the application filed under the Right to Information Act was vague and lacking in necessary particulars, the information sought could not be furnished, and accordingly a reasoned reply to that effect was communicated vide letter dated 11.02.2020; however, despite such clarification, the information seeker neither appeared before the concerned authority to file a proper and specific application nor sought any assistance from the Public Information Officer to obtain the information in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law; it is further submitted that the said response of the petitioner was duly affirmed by the First Appellate Authority upon consideration of the appeal preferred by the information seeker, and thereafter a second appeal was filed before the State Information Commission; it is contended that the Second Appellate Authority, without appreciating the aforesaid factual and legal aspects and without recording any finding to the effect that the petitioner had deliberately or mala fide withheld the information, proceeded to hold that the information had not been supplied and that the provisions of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act were not attracted, and consequently directed furnishing of information along with imposition of penalty; it is also submitted that although an opportunity was purportedly granted to the petitioner in relation to imposition of penalty, the reply submitted by him was not duly considered, and the penalty was imposed mechanically,