Sudhir Kumar Kale vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 25/06/2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Complaint Case No. C/1602/2017 (7)/Raipur, whereby a penalty of ₹25,000/- has been imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’). The impugned orders arise out of RTI application dated 31/10/2017 filed by respondent No. 05 seeking information relating to the appointment of the State Information Commissioner, which was denied by the petitioner, then serving as Public Information Officer, on the ground of exemption under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the Act, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27734/2012.

It is the case of the petitioner that despite filing detailed replies and the First Appellate Authority upholding the denial of information, the Commission, without proper consideration of the record and without affording an opportunity of hearing or serving a show cause notice, mechanically imposed the penalty, rendering the impugned order arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside and the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 passed by respondent No.1, i.e., the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur, is wholly unsustainable in law, having been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner, while discharging duties as Public Information Officer, had duly considered the request of respondent No.5 and rejected the same by invoking the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the Act, as the information sought was exempted from disclosure. The said decision was further affirmed by the First Appellate Authority. It is submitted that despite such statutory affirmation, respondent No.5, instead of availing the statutory remedy of Second Appeal under Section 19 of the Act, wrongly invoked proceedings under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act by filing a complaint seeking imposition of penalty, which itself is not maintainable.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the entire proceedings are vitiated as respondent No.5 has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Commission by filing a complaint instead of preferring a Second Appeal under Section 19 of the Act. It is submitted that once the First Appellate Authority had already adjudicated the matter, the only appropriate remedy available was a statutory appeal before the State Information Commission, and therefore, the proceedings initiated in the form of a complaint are contrary to the scheme of the Act. It is further submitted that the impugned penalty order has been passed without proper appreciation of the procedural requirements mandated under the Act.

Learned State counsel would support the submission put forth by counsel for Respondent No.1.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

From a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that respondent No.5, instead of availing the statutory remedy of Second Appeal under Section 19 of the Act, has erroneously filed a complaint before the State Information Commission, which is not in consonance with the scheme of the Act. Even if the said complaint is treated as a Second Appeal for the sake of argument, the Commission, before imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of Act, was required to record a categorical finding that the Public Information Officer had, without reasonable cause or with mala fide intent, denied the information or caused obstruction in furnishing the same. Moreover, the mandatory requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Public Information Officer, as envisaged under Section 20(1) of the Act, appears to have not been complied with in its true spirit. The impugned order does not reflect due consideration of these essential statutory safeguards.

In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and procedural infirmity, and is therefore not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside.

Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed.