RTI Act | First Appellate Authority Not Deemed Public Information Officer Without Meeting S.5 Requirements: Chhattisgarh High Court
Saksham Vaishya
21 July 2026 6:00 PM IST
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-right-to-information-act-cryptic-orders-directions-236017
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer and subjected to penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act without satisfaction of the statutory requirements contained in Sections 5(4) and 5(5). The Court observed that the State Information Commission imposed a penalty without recording the necessary findings. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 75]
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by a First Appellate Authority challenging the order of the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner contended that he had discharged his duties as the First Appellate Authority by issuing notices, granting opportunities of hearing and deciding the first appeal by a reasoned order. He further contended that the information sought pertained to another office and that the State Information Commission had illegally treated him as a deemed Public Information Officer while exonerating the designated Public Information Officer.
The Court noted that the sole question was whether a First Appellate Authority could be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer and subjected to penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. It held that under Sections 5(4) and 5(5), an officer can be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer only if the designated Public Information Officer has sought his assistance.
The Court observed that in the present case, there was no material to show that any such assistance had been sought or that the petitioner had been entrusted with the responsibility of furnishing information. It held that merely acting as the First Appellate Authority does not attract the deeming fiction under Section 5(5).
“… there is no material to show that such assistance was ever sought or that the petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of furnishing information. Merely acting as the First Appellate Authority does not attract the deeming fiction under Section 5(5),” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that the designated Public Information Officer had not been held liable, whereas the entire penalty had been imposed upon the petitioner without recording any legally sustainable reason. The Court also found that the impugned order did not record satisfaction regarding any of the statutory ingredients under Section 20(1).
The Court reiterated that the penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act is penal in nature, the statutory conditions must be strictly fulfilled, and reasons must be recorded while rejecting the explanation of the noticee. The Court held that the State Information Commission erred in treating the petitioner as a deemed Public Information Officer without satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Act and that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind, misinterpretation of the statutory provisions and violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 21.09.2021 imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also quashed all consequential proceedings, including the recovery proceedings, if any.
Case Title: Kaushlendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPC No. 1745 of 2022]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 75
