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 emphasised the need to follow proper procedures, including giving a 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
- Related official letters under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Petitioner Contention
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.100,000) 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.
Timeline Of Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 21 August 2018 | Four RTI applications filed by Respondent No. 3. |
| 22 February 2019 | Complaints filed before State Information Commission |
| 29 May 2021 | Penalty order passed by the Commission |
| Subsequently | Writ petition filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh |
Dispute Before The Court
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.
Grounds Raised By The Petitioner
- There was no proof that the RTI applications were received by him.
- The complainant directly approached the State Information Commission without exhausting the statutory remedy of first appeal.
- He appeared for the video conferencing hearing but could not connect due to internet failure at the NIC centre.
- The Commission still proceeded to pass an ex-parte order.
- Filing four separate RTI applications on the same subject amounted to harassment.
Key Legal Issues
| Issue | Description |
|---|---|
| Proof of Service | Whether the RTI applications were actually received by the PIO. |
| Opportunity of Hearing | Whether an adequate hearing opportunity was provided before imposing a penalty. |
| Statutory Remedy | Whether the complainant should have first approached the First Appellate Authority. |
| Multiple Applications | Whether filing repeated applications on the same subject constituted harassment. |
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court referred to the Bombay High Court judgement 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 judgement clarified that a 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.
Findings of the Court
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 acknowledgement.
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.
Important Legal Principles
| Legal Issue | Principle Settled by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 18 RTI Complaints | Complaints under Section 18 cannot ordinarily bypass the statutory appeal remedy under Section 19. |
| Penalty Under Section 20(1) | A penalty can be imposed only after a proper inquiry and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. |
| Burden on PIO | The PIO must prove reasonable and diligent conduct during proceedings. |
| Virtual Hearing Issues | Technical difficulties during virtual hearings must be fairly considered before passing ex-parte orders. |
| Proof of RTI Receipt | Clear evidence of delivery or acknowledgement is necessary before holding the PIO liable. |
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 a refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner within eight weeks.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgement 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 a penalty under Section 20(1) requires the following:
- Clear evidence of receipt of application;
- Deliberate default or mala fide action;
- A meaningful opportunity of hearing to the PIO; and
- Fair consideration of technical difficulties during virtual hearings.
Case Details
| Title | Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors. |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 13 May 2026 |
| Case Number | WPC No. 3944 of 2021 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Hon’ble Mr Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice, 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
