Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the imposition of a ₹25,000 penalty under Section 20(1), Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), a Single Judge Bench of Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., held that the order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC) on 9 May 2022 was unsustainable in law. The Court emphasised that penalty under the RTI Act is unsustainable without a clear finding of mala fide denial of information or unreasonable delay without sufficient cause, and stressed that such provisions, being quasi-criminal in nature, cannot be invoked mechanically.
Background
The RTI application dated 10 April 2019 was transferred by the Public Information Officer (PIO) to the audit and store sections. The audit section furnished 12 pages of available information, while the Store Section reported that no such information was available.
The petitioner argued that he could not be penalised for non-availability of information that did not exist and emphasised that there was no deliberate withholding or mala fide intention. The first appellate authority acknowledged that the issue was essentially one of availability of records, directing that if further information was traceable, it should be provided.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the penalty was rightly imposed as the petitioner failed to ensure complete and timely information, and that merely transferring the application did not absolve him of statutory obligation. SIC further argued that under Section 6(3), RTI Act, the petitioner was duty-bound to transfer the application to the authority where the information was available, which he failed to do.
Analysis
The Court referred to Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 6061, wherein it was held that the power to impose penalty is not automatic or mechanical, but is conditioned upon the existence of cogent material demonstrating that the PIO has, without reasonable cause, either refused to furnish information, caused undue delay, or acted in a mala fide manner. The Court further in Nitin Singhvi (supra) noted that mere delay or inability to furnish certain information, particularly when such information is not available on record or lies with another authority, would not ipso facto attract penal consequences, and before imposing penalty, the Information Commission is under a statutory obligation to record a clear and reasoned finding with respect to the existence of mala fide intent or lack of reasonable cause, and must also afford an effective opportunity of hearing to the officer concerned.
The Court observed that the impugned order dated 9 May 2022 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as a careful consideration of the material available on record would reveal that the petitioner, while discharging his duties as PIO, had acted in accordance with the statutory scheme of the RTI Act. The Court noted that upon receipt of the application dated 10 April 2019, the petitioner promptly transferred the same to the sections concerned, namely, audit and store, which were the custodians of the information sought.
The Court highlighted that the audit section furnished the available information, which was duly supplied, whereas the store section categorically informed that no such information was available on record. Thus, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non-supply of information which admittedly did not exist or was not held by the office concerned.
The Court also noted that the first appellate authority, while considering the grievance, did not record any finding of mala fide or deliberate lapse on the part of the petitioner, but merely directed that if any further information is traceable, the same be provided or the application be transferred to the appropriate authority. The Court emphasised that this itself indicates that the issue pertained to availability and traceability of records rather than any intentional default on the part of the petitioner.
The Court further observed that during the relevant period, the petitioner had been transferred from the post of PIO, and therefore had no effective control over subsequent compliance. In light of the law laid down in Nitin Singhvi (supra), as well as the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, it is manifest that imposition of penalty under Section 20(1), RTI Act is not automatic and must be preceded by a clear and reasoned finding of mala fide denial of information or delay without reasonable cause.
The Court highlighted that the conduct of the petitioner does not fall within the mischief contemplated under Section 20(1), RTI Act, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had either deliberately withheld information, furnished misleading information, or acted in a contumacious manner so as to warrant imposition of penalty. The Court emphasised that the steps taken by the petitioner in transferring the application and facilitating supply of available information clearly demonstrate due diligence and bona fide discharge of his duties.
Decision
The Court held that the SIC, while exercising quasi-judicial powers entailing civil consequences, was under an obligation to record specific findings with regard to absence of reasonable cause and existence of mala fide intent. The Court concluded that the failure to do so vitiated the impugned order. The Court further observed that the penalty imposed appeared punitive without any legal foundation and was liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 9 May 2022 including any consequential recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, and directed that there shall be no order as to costs.
[T.A. Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 8128, decided on 5-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Akash Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent: S.S. Choubey, Govt. Advocate, Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate
