Durg (Shri Gulab Chand Soni v. Public
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2025:CGHC:21519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4140 of 2022 1 - Naresh Kumar Patel S/o Shri R.C. Patel Aged About 50 Years Occupation Service, Working As Inspector In The Department Of Police, Presently Posted As Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Gulab Chand Soni, R/o Soni Jewellers, Jawahar Chowk, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
:- Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 07.05.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 in Complaint Case No. C/433/2020, Durg (Shri Gulab Chand Soni v. Public 2 Information Officer and others), whereby the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) entertained a complaint filed by Shri Gulab Chand Soni and imposed a fine on the petitioner, further directing recovery of the said fine from the petitioner’s salary. The petitioner, a police officer who was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg at the relevant time, submits that the complainant filed twelve applications under Sections 5 and 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which were sent by post, with the sole intention to harass the petitioner due to a personal grudge. The petitioner’s office had duly informed the complainant that the information sought could not be provided under the Act; however, instead of filing an appeal as per the procedure under the RTI Act, the complainant directly filed a complaint before the Commission, which was entertained without jurisdiction. The consequent imposition of penalty and the order for its recovery from the petitioner’s salary is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the scheme of the RTI Act, 2005, and hence this petition is being filed to challenge the same. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Commission for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash / set aside the order dated 3 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 in Complaint Case No.C/433/2020 Durg (Shri Gulab Chand Soni v. Public Information Officer and others). 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a serving police officer who joined the Police Department as a Sub-Inspector in the year 2000 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Inspector on account of his discipline, sincerity, and meritorious service. He was posted as Station House Officer (SHO) at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, during which time respondent No.2, Shri Gulab Chand Soni—proprietor of M/s Soni Jewellers and self- proclaimed RTI activist—filed multiple RTI applications under Sections 5 and 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI Act”), including one dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-2), seeking detailed records about government vehicles, fuel usage, and logbooks. The petitioner’s office, via letter dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-3), responded that the information could not be provided, possibly falling under exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Instead of filing a statutory appeal under Section 19, respondent No.2 filed another application dated 10.12.2019 invoking Section 7(6) and threatening penal action under Section 20 of the Act (Annexure P-4). Despite repeated clarification and 4 re-supply of the earlier reply on 14.12.2019 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.2 bypassed the appellate mechanism and filed a complaint under Section 18 before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which was entertained, and the petitioner was issued notices (Annexures P-6 & P-7). Despite the petitioner submitting a detailed reply (Annexures P-10 & P-11), the Commission, without appreciating the legal defenses and procedural lapses by the complainant, passed an order imposing penalty and directing salary recovery. The petitioner asserts that the information was either exempt or already communicated and the complaint was filed solely to harass him. The complainant has a history of filing vexatious RTI applications—sometimes through family members like Minal Soni—and his brother Inder Chand Soni has already been barred by the Commission for misuse of the RTI Act (Annexures P-13 & P-14). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as the Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, and was also the designated Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 at the relevant time. On receipt of an RTI application dated 11.10.2019 from respondent No.2 seeking voluminous information related to government vehicles, including allotment orders, log books, and fuel consumption records spanning over two and a half years, the petitioner, despite being on sanctioned leave during the relevant period, ensured that a reply was issued through his office. The said reply, dated 5 02.12.2019 and 14.12.2019, duly informed the respondent that the information could not be provided as it was voluminous, exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act, and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the respondent directly approached the Commission under Section 18, and the Commission, without properly appreciating the facts and legal position, arbitrarily imposed a penalty upon the petitioner through the impugned order (Annexure P-1), which is stigmatic and prejudicial to the petitioner’s service career. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner, in his capacity as the designated Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005, was under a statutory obligation to provide information as sought in the RTI application. It is contended that the information sought pertained to public records regarding government vehicles, including their allotment, usage, and fuel consumption, which are matters of public interest and cannot be treated as exempt from disclosure in a blanket manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to take timely and effective steps to furnish the information or to communicate a proper justification as mandated under the Act. The mere fact that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave does not absolve him of his statutory responsibilities as the PIO, particularly when no alternate arrangement or delegation of duties has been shown to exist. As regards the petitioner’s contention 6 that the respondent ought to have preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, it is submitted that Section 18 provides an independent and concurrent remedy to a citizen who has been denied access to information, and the respondent was well within his rights to approach the State Information Commission directly under that provision. The penalty imposed by the Commission under Section 20 of the RTI Act was after due consideration of the facts and the willful refusal/failure of the petitioner to discharge his duties. It is neither arbitrary nor unjustified, and is in line with the objective of ensuring accountability and transparency under the RTI regime. Therefore, the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the
Decision
documents appended to the writ petition. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,550/- upon the petitioner, who was functioning as the Public Information Officer, solely on the basis of an alleged denial in furnishing information, is not legally sustainable. There is no material on record to demonstrate any malafide intention or deliberate misconduct on the part of the petitioner in withholding the information sought by the information seeker. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra & Another passed in Civil Appeal 7 No.9095/2012 emphasized that absence of mala fides or willful default must be considered before imposing penalty under the RTI Act. The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- “30. All the attributable defaults of a Central or State Public Information Officer have to be without any reasonable cause and persistently. In other words, besides finding that any of the stated defaults have been committed by such officer, the Commission has to further record its opinion that such default in relation to receiving of an application or not furnishing the information within the specified time was committed persistently and without a reasonable cause. Use of such language by the Legislature clearly shows that the expression ‘shall’ appearing before ‘recommend’ has to be read and construed as ‘may’. There could be cases where there is reasonable cause shown and the officer is able to demonstrate that there was no persistent default on his part either in receiving the application or furnishing the requested information. In such circumstances, the law does not require recommendation for disciplinary proceedings to be made. It is not the legislative mandate that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of a given case, whether reasonable cause is shown or not, the Commission must recommend disciplinary action merely because the application was not responded to within 30 days. Every case has to be examined on its own facts. We would hasten to add here that wherever reasonable cause is not shown to the 8 satisfaction of the Commission and the Commission is of the opinion that there is default in terms of the Section it must send the recommendation for disciplinary action in accordance with law to the concerned authority. In such circumstances, it will have no choice but to send recommendatory report. The burden of forming an opinion in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(2) and principles of natural justice lies upon the Commission. 31. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant had shown that the default, if any on his part, was not without reasonable cause or result of a persistent default on his part. On the contrary, he had taken steps within his power and authority to provide information to respondent No.2. It was for the department concerned to react and provide the information asked for. In the present case, some default itself is attributable to respondent No.2 who did not even care to respond to the letter of the department dated 11th April, 2007. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Information Commission dated 26th February, 2008 and the judgment of the High Court under appeal. Both the judgments are e set aside and the appeal is allowed. We further direct that the disciplinary action, if any, initiated by the department against the appellant shall be withdrawn forthwith. 32. Further, we direct the State Information Commission to decide the appeal filed by respondent No.2 before it on merits and in 9 accordance with law. It will also be open to the Commission to hear the appellant and pass any orders as contemplated under Section 20(2), in furtherance to the notice issued to the appellant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.” 9. Reverting back to the present case, the petitioner had duly informed respondent No.2 through replies dated 02.12.2019 and 14.12.2019, citing valid statutory grounds for non-disclosure. The petitioner also informed the respondents about the available remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, which the respondent chose not to avail. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any element of intentional default, the impugned order imposing penalty upon the petitioner is stigmatic and prejudicial to his service career, and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1- Commission is hereby quashed and set- aside. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha