Shri. Babarao Ambadas Shinde vs State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shri. Babarao Ambadas Shinde vs State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order quashed and set aside to the extent it imposes penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioners; matter remanded to respondent No.1 - State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati, for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; parties to appear before respondent No.1 on 06.03.2026; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the petitioners (Public Information Officers) under Section 20(1) read with Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, without affording an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable.

Court's answer

The impugned order imposing penalty was passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and is therefore unsustainable in law.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent it imposes penalty; accordingly, the imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioners is quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 - State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati, for fresh consideration in the light of the observations in the order.ratio¶30
Respondent No.1 must give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before passing any fresh orders; parties directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 06.03.2026.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Right to Information Act, 2005 - Penalty under S.20(1) r/w S.19(8) - Imposed by second Appellate Authority (State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati) on Public Information Officers without affording opportunity of hearing - Held, no one should be condemned unheard; order passed without hearing unsustainable in law - Impugned order quashed and set aside to the extent of penalty of Rs.25,000/- - Matter remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration with direction to hear the petitioners before passing any orders - Parties to appear on 06.03.2026 - Reliance placed on co-ordinate Bench decision in Babarao Ambadas Shinde v. State Information Commissioner (W.P. No.2001/2021 with connected matters, decided 27.03.2025) - Writ petitions disposed of, no order as to costs.

1 / 3 2.wp5817.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 5817 OF 2025

Babarao Ambadas Shinde Vs.

State Information Commissioner Bench at Amravati and Ors.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5819 OF 2025

Babarao Ambadas Shinde

Vs.

State Information Commissioner Bench at Amravati and Ors.

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Court's or Judge's Orders.

Mr. A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for petitioner.

Ms. Prachi Joshi, AGP for respondent No.1/State in WP No.5817/2025.

Ms. K.H. Bhondge, AGP for respondent No.1/State in WP No.5819/2025.

Mr. O.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 25.02.2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.

The issue involved in these petitions is identical and can be disposed of by common order. These petitions arise out of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act of 2005). In the proceedings of appeal filed by the respondents before the

Prity

2 / 3 2.wp5817.2025

second Appellate authority, by the impugned order a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the Pubic Information Officers under the provisions of Section 20(1) read with Section 19(8) of the Act of 2005.

The argument is that the penalty has been imposed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the orders passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Babarao Ambadas Shinde Vs. State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati and Ors , in Writ Petition No.2001/2021 with connected matters decided on 27.03.2025, wherein this Court took a view that before imposing penalty and explanation ought to have been sought from the Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioners. In other words, the Co-ordinate Bench has reiterated the well settled principle that no one should be condemned unheard and any order passed without an opportunity of hearing to the parties is unsustainable in law.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to that extent.

Although learned AGP as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 tried to justify the impugned

Prity

3 / 3 2.wp5817.2025

order however, the fact remains that the impugned order imposing penalty has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

In view of this, the impugned order to the extent it imposes penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioners is quashed and set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1- State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati, for considering the matter afresh in the light of what has been stated in the body of the said order.

The respondent No.1 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing any orders.

The parties shall appear before the respondent No.1 – State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati on 06.03.2026.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

(Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Prity Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 26/02/2026 19:21:39