In Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on 13 May 2026 in WPC No. 3944 of 2021 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 29.05.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- in each of four complaints along with recommendation for disciplinary action against the petitioner, who was then Secretary and Public Information Officer of Gram Panchayat Dongarigardh.
The dispute arose when Respondent No.3 filed four RTI applications seeking information on forest rights leases and related documents. Complaints were filed directly before the State Information Commission under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act, 2005 without preferring a first appeal under Section 19. The Commission imposed the maximum penalty for alleged delay in furnishing information.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that the complaints under Section 18 were not maintainable as the statutory appellate remedy under Section 19 was not exhausted. The Court further observed that there was no conclusive proof of receipt of the RTI applications by the petitioner, no proper inquiry was conducted, and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded, especially as the petitioner could not join the video conferencing hearing due to technical failure. The imposition of penalty without establishing mala fide or absence of reasonable cause was unsustainable.
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed with a direction to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#ChhattisgarhHighCourt, #RTIAct2005, #PIOPenalty, #Section18RTI, #Section20RTI, #NaturalJustice, #RTILitigation, #InformationCommission, #WritPetition, #JusticeAmitendraKishorePrasad, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
===
Introduction
The Right to Information Act, 2005 aims to promote transparency while balancing the duties of public servants. In a significant ruling, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified important safeguards available to Public Information Officers (PIOs) when facing penalties for alleged delays or non-supply of information. The Court emphasized the need to follow proper procedures, including giving fair opportunity of hearing and exhausting statutory remedies before imposing penalties.
Factual and Procedural Background
Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena, the petitioner, was serving as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Dongarigardh in District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh and was also the Public Information Officer for that office. Respondent No.3, Shri Nitin Singhvi, filed four separate RTI applications on 21 August 2018 seeking details related to forest rights leases, constitution of Forest Rights Committee, objections sent to higher committees, and related official letters under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
The petitioner claimed that he never received these four RTI applications and there was no record of them in the panchayat office. After about six months, on 22 February 2019, Respondent No.3 filed four separate complaints directly before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act without approaching the First Appellate Authority. The Commission entertained the complaints and, after issuing notice, passed an order on 29 May 2021 imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner in each of the four complaints (total Rs.1,00,000) and recommended disciplinary action against him for delay in furnishing information.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Dispute
The main dispute was whether the State Information Commission was justified in imposing the maximum penalty on the PIO without proper proof that the RTI applications were received by him, without following the first appeal route, and without granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that he appeared for the video conferencing hearing but could not connect due to internet failure at the NIC centre, yet the Commission passed an ex-parte order. He also contended that filing four separate applications on the same subject amounted to harassment.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad carefully examined the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly Sections 18, 19, and 20. The Court referred to the Bombay High Court judgment in Goa Cricket Association vs. State of Goa (Writ Petition No.739 of 2010, decided on 22 March 2013, 2013 (4) MhLJ 453). In that case, the Bombay High Court held that Section 18 of the RTI Act is meant for specific complaints and does not normally allow bypassing the first appeal under Section 19 when the grievance relates to non-supply or delay in information.
The Judge also relied on Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Rui Ferreira and Ors (W.P. Nos.132 and 307 of 2011, decided on 28 July 2011, 2011 (5) MhLJ 765), where it was observed that parties cannot bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 19 and directly approach the Commission under Section 18 for grievances arising from non-furnishing of information.
On the question of penalty under Section 20(1), the Court discussed the Delhi High Court ruling in Shamik Nag vs. The Public Information Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce (WPC No.8913 of 2016, decided on 4 August 2017). This judgment clarified that penalty can be imposed only after a proper inquiry and after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mandated by the proviso to Section 20(1). The burden to prove reasonable and diligent action lies on the PIO, but this burden can only be discharged if a genuine hearing is provided.
In the present case, the Judge found that the petitioner had raised a credible defence that the RTI applications were never received. There was no conclusive evidence of delivery or acknowledgment. The Commission did not conduct a proper inquiry into this aspect. Additionally, the technical failure during the video conferencing hearing was not adequately considered, and no further opportunity was given, violating principles of natural justice. The Court also noted that the information was eventually supplied after the notice from the Commission.
Final Decision of the Court
On 13 May 2026, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 29 May 2021 passed by the State Information Commission in all four complaint cases. The Court directed refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner within eight weeks.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgment settles that complaints under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act should not ordinarily be entertained when the grievance is of delay or non-supply of information, without first exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 19. It further reinforces that imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) requires clear evidence of receipt of application, deliberate default or mala fide action, and a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the PIO. Technical difficulties in virtual hearings must be considered fairly before passing ex-parte penal orders.
Case Detail Title: Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors. Date of Order: 13 May 2026 Case Number: WPC No. 3944 of 2021 Neutral Citation: Not Available Name of Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suitable SEO Titles for Legal Journal: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Rs 1 Lakh Penalty on PIO for RTI Delay Citing Lack of Hearing and Proof of Receipt, Section 18 vs Section 19 RTI Act Maintainability Judgment by Chhattisgarh High Court, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Ruling on Natural Justice in RTI Penalty Cases, RTI Penalty Quashed Due to Non Exhaustion of First Appeal and Technical Hearing Failure
SEO Tags: Chhattisgarh High Court, RTI Act 2005, Public Information Officer Penalty, Section 20 RTI Penalty, Section 18 Complaint Maintainability, Natural Justice in RTI, First Appeal Under Section 19 RTI, Forest Rights Information RTI, PIO Protection Judgment, Writ Petition RTI
AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote: Chhattisgarh High Court allows writ petition and quashes penalty of Rs.25,000 imposed in each of four complaints on PIO holding that direct complaint under Section 18 bypassing first appeal under Section 19 was not proper, no conclusive proof of receipt of RTI applications existed, and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted especially due to technical failure in video conferencing. Penalty order set aside with direction for refund.
===
No comments:
Post a Comment