The imposition of penalty under the Right to Information Act requires consideration of malafide intent and reasonable cause for delays, with failure to respond to inquiries exacerbating liability.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 4^th February, 2011 (Annexure-4) passed by the Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Commission’) in Second Appeal No.92 of 2008 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby the Petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of Rs.25,000/- for causing delay of more than hundred days in supplying the information.

3. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that one, Siba Prasad Naik filed two applications in Form-A on 7^th January, 2008 with the Public Information Officer (PIO), Directorate of Industries, Odisha, Cuttack seeking information on three points relating to Roster Register of Accountants of DICs relating to 2007 and his transfer etc. Both the applications seeking for information were made on the same day, i.e., on 7^th January, 2008. The applications were forwarded to the referral PIOs and the Joint Director of Industries vide letter No.376 dated 9^th January, 2008 and Letter No.409 dated 10^th January, 2008 respectively for providing the required information. As no information was furnished by the referral PIOs, they were reminded vide letter Nos.1362 and 1368 dated 31st January, 2008 to supply the information within the stipulated time. As no response was made by the PIOs, the applicant filed First Appeal in Form-D. The First Appeal was also not disposed of within the disputed period. Hence, the applicant preferred Second Appeal No.92 of 2008. In the meantime, the information has been supplied to the applicant.

4. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that delay, if any, caused for supplying information was beyond the control of the Petitioner as the documents were submitted to the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1100 of 2007 filed by one Sri B.N. Mohanty, Former Senior Clerk, Director of Industries, Balasore. The records concerning the agenda in question, which was sought for by the applicant was submitted to the Tribunal vide letter No.10357 dated 7^th September, 2007. Thus, it could not be supplied to the Petitioner in time. It was also informed to the First Appellate Authority that on obtaining the said from the Tribunal, the same would be supplied to the applicant. The Commission being swayed away by the fact that the Petitioner had not filed the show cause reply either to the second appeal or to the notice under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’), imposed the penalty.

4.1 It is his submission that the maximum penalty as provided under the Act has been imposed on the Petitioner. The Petitioner had no contribution in non-supply of the information in time. In the meantime, he has retired from service. Hence, his case should be considered sympathetically and the penalty imposed should be waived. If, at all, it is held that there is negligence on the part of the Petitioner, still then he may be exempted from payment of the penalty as he had no mala fide intention to withhold the same and the delay, if any, caused in supplying the information was beyond his control and thus, it was not unreasonable.

5. In support of his case, Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the case of Registrar of Companies and others –v- Dharmendra Kumar Garg and others , reported in (2012) ILR 6 Delhi 499, wherein at Paragraph-60, it is held as under:

“60. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610