A.R. Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Imran Khan Aged About 60 Years Presently Working As v. 1 - Chhattisgarh State Info
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.21 13:55:14 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:22106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4623 of 2022 A.R. Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Imran Khan Aged About 60 Years Presently Working As Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Address- 1st Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o -MIG-16, Megh Malhar Complex, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur Chhattisgarh Police Station- Aamaa Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through - Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, General Administration Department, State of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Public Information Officer, Department, State oOf C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Lalit Tigga, Then Assistant Public Information Officer, School And Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bachan Singh Varkade, Assistant Grade-I, School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - B. K. Sarkar, Near Sai Mandir, Opposite Community Hall, Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Tehsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 4590 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
A.R. Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Imran Khan Aged About 60 Years Presently Working As Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Address 1st Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G/) Permanent R/o MIG-16, Megh Malhar Copmplex, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.) Police Station Aamaa Naka, Raipur (C.G.), Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Secretary, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary General Administration Department, State of C. G. Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Public Information Officer General Administration Department, State of C. G. Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Lalit Tigga Assistant Public Information Officer, School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - B.K. Sarkar Near Sai Mandir, Opposite Community Hall Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate 3 For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer and 3 : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No.4 in WPC and 5 and No.4623/2022 Respondent No.4 in WPC No.4590/2022 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Decision
Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions, Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate for respondent No.1 in both the petitions, Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned Panel Lawyer for the State in both the petitions and Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5 in WPC No.4623/2022 and respondent No.4 in WPC No.4590/2022. 2. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the writ petitions, as such, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. In WPC No.4623/2022, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the Complaint Case No.C/659/2019 B.K. Sarkar Vs Public Information Officer, School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, 4 Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to quash/setting aside the impugned order dated 27/07/2022 passed by the Respondent No.01 learned Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No.C/569/2019 (Annexure P/01) in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost be awarded to the petitioner.” 4. In WPC No.4590/2022, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the Complaint Case No.C/496/2019 B.K. Sarkar Vs Public Information Officer, School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to quash/setting aside the impugned order dated 27/07/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.-01) passed in Complaint 5 Case No.C/496/2019 (Annexure P/01) in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost be awarded to the petitioner.” 5. The petitioner herein calls in question the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) in both the writ petitions passed by respondent No.1 in two different Complaint Case being C/569/2019 and C/496/2019, respectively which were filed by complainant- B.K. Sarkar in both the writ petitions, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner in each of the cases under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “RTI Act, 2005’) for not providing the requisite information to the complainant. 6. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner was the Public Information Officer and also Under Secretary in Department of School Education at the relevant point of time. The complainant has filed applications seeking some information which was received by the office of the petitioner on 28.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 respectively. Respondent No.4 who was an Assistant Public Information Officer has received aforesaid applications and submitted note-sheet on 28.03.2019 and 26.03.2019 respectively. Respondent No.4 has further mentioned that the matter relates to 6 Directorate of School Education (Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya) therefore, it would be appropriate that the applications be filed under Section 6(3)(ii) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the respective Public Information Officer. 7. Being satisfied with the note-sheet, the petitioner instructed respondent No.4 to prepare a draft of the letter and accordingly, on 24.04.2019, the applications of the complainant were forwarded to the Public Information Officer, Directorate of School Education, Indravati Bhawan, Raipur. Further, the complainant has filed applications under RTI Act, 2005 before respondent No.1 and case was registered as Complaint Case being No.C/569/2019 and C/496/2019, respectively. Later on, Department of School Education has appointed respondent No.4 as Public Information Officer who was Section Officer of the Department. On 28.04.2020, respondent no.4 has provided all the information to the complainant/information seeker and the same were also intimated to Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur. 8. Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure envisaged under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 has not been followed while passing the impugned order. He further submits that without there being any reason, vide order dated 27.07.2022, penalty of Rs.25,000/- each has been imposed to the petitioner and before imposing such penalty, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and directly 7 impugned order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner, as such, the impugned order in both the writ petitions is liable to be quashed/set-aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani and Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 in WPC No.4623/2022 and respondent No.4 in WPC No.4590/2022 supported the impugned order and submit that order has rightly been passed as the petitioner has not supplied the requisite information to the information seeker. They further submit that the information seeker has filed two applications which were received by the office of the petitioner, however, without considering the matter, the applications have been forwarded to another Department, which is deliberate one and unsustainable in law. 10. Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned counsel appearing for the State also supported the impugned order and submits that the said order passed by the learned State Information Commissioner is strictly in accordance with law and it has rightly been passed, as such, the instant writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 11. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care and caution. 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which states as under:- 8 “20. Penalties:- (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidly denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees; Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him; Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.” 9 13. A careful perusal of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 would show that if the State Public Information Officer has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information, the State Information Commission has power and jurisdiction to impose a penalty till the information is furnished after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on the public information officer who is guilty of not giving such information and in that case, the Public Information Officer has an opportunity to establish that he acted reasonably and diligently. 14. While dealing with Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 the Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar S/o Mnikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14 has held as under:- “15. State Information Commissions exercise very wide and certainly quasi judicial powers. In fact their functioning is akin to the judicial system rather than the executive decision making process. It is a settled principle of law and does not require us to discuss this principle with any elaboration that adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory for such Tribunal or bodies discharging such functions. 16. The State Information Commission has 10 been vested with wide powers including imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees. Exercise of such power is bound to adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent. Thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. It will not be open to the Court to give them such liberal construction that it would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation to the principles of natural justice. 17. The State Information Commission is performing adjudicatory functions where two parties raise their respective issues to which the State Information Commission is expected to apply its mind and pass an order directing disclosure of the information asked for or declining the same. Either way, it affects the rights of the parties who have raised rival contentions before the Commission. If there were no rival contentions, the matter would rest at the level of the designated Public Information Officer or immediately thereafter. It comes to the State Information Commission only at the appellate stage when rights and contentions require adjudication. The adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording 11 of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice. It is not expected of the Commission to breach any of these principles, particularly when its orders are open to judicial review. Much less to Tribunals or such Commissions, the Courts have even made compliance to the principle of rule of natural justice obligatory in the class of administrative matters as well. 22. We may notice that proviso to Section 20(1) specifically contemplates that before imposing the penalty contemplated under Section 20(1), the Commission shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned officer. However, there is no such specific provision in relation to the matters covered under Section 20(2). Section 20(2) empowers the Central or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding a complaint or appeal for the reasons stated in that section, to recommend for disciplinary action to be taken against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the relevant service rules. Power to recommend disciplinary action is a power exercise of which may impose penal consequences. When such a recommendation is received, the disciplinary authority would conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and subject to satisfaction of the 12 requirements of law. It is a ‘recommendation’ and not a ‘mandate’ to conduct an enquiry. ‘Recommendation’ must be seen in contradistinction to ‘direction’ or ‘mandate’. But recommendation itself vests the delinquent Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer with consequences which are of serious nature and can ultimately produce prejudicial results including misconduct within the relevant service rules and invite minor and/or major penalty. 23. Thus, the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20(2). It is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence including service jurisprudence that no person be condemned unheard. Directing disciplinary action is an order in the form of recommendation which has far reaching civil consequences. It will not be permissible to take the view that compliance with principles of natural justice is not a condition precedent to passing of a recommendation under Section 20(2).” 15. The penalty provisions under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. (See State of 13 Punjab and others v. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another reported in 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 3275). 16. The order is penalty for failure is akin to action under Criminal Law. It is necessary to ensure that the failure to supply the information is either intentional or deliberate. Unless and until it is borne on record that any officer against whom order of penalty for failure is sought to be levied and had occasion to comply with the order, and has no explanation or excuse available worth satisfying the forum, possess the knowledge of the order to supply information, an order of penalty cannot be levied. (See A.A. Parulekar v. Goa State Information Commission reported in 2010 (1) Mh.L.J.). 17. Reverting to the facts of the present cases in light of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that that applications have been moved by the information seeker on 13.03.2019 and the concerned Public Information Officer has directed the Assistant Public Information Officer to consider the same as also to give information as sought by the information seeker. It is further seems that the Assistant Public Information Officer has informed the petitioner that the matter relates to Directorate of School Education, therefore, it would be appropriate to forward the applications to the said Department, upon which, the petitioner has directed to forward the letters/applications to the Directorate 14 of School Education, as such, there is no deliberate and malafide intention of the petitioner not to provide information to the information seeker. 18. Since the Sub-ordinate Officer has informed the petitioner to forward the applications/letters to the concerned Department, therefore, the same were forwarded to the concerned Department. In the impugned order itself, it has been specifically mentioned that on reply while not giving information within time, the petitioner has categorically stated that the relevant documents could not be supplied to him within time by his Sub-ordinate Officer, as such, the same could not be supplied within time. In the order itself, it has been further mentioned that since penal action could not be taken against Sub-ordinate Officer, as such, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each in both the complaint cases have been imposed upon the petitioner. 19. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the cases, it seems that delay in providing information sought by the information seeker is not by any deliberate action of the petitioner since his Sub-ordinate Officer has informed him that the information is to be supplied by Directorate of School Education which is evident from the order-sheets as the same could not be supplied within time. The respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 27.07.2022 has specifically mentioned the same. However, before imposition of penalty, the petitioner was not heard as 15 provided under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, as such, impugned order imposing penalty is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. 20. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court is of the considered view that as the information sought for by the information seeker has already been supplied to him, as such, the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 in both the writ petitions is liable to be and is hereby set-aside/quashed. As a consequence, the interim order passed earlier in both the writ petitions shall stand vacated. 21. In the result, both the writ petitions being WPC No.4623/2022 and WPC No.4590/2022 are allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh