The Right to Information Act permits the imposition of penalties solely on designated Public Information Officers, not on appellate authorities.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, CJ.

1. A short question which the present intra-Court appeal involves is as to whether penalty can be imposed or not in exercise of power under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short "RTI Act") on an appellate authority under the RTI Act by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, and whether such penalty can be imposed only on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the State Public Information Officer (SPIO). of the RTI Act reads thus:

“20. Penalties.—

(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.” (Underscored the emphasis)

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein was not the Public Information Officer (PIO). The State Information Commissioner, Odisha, by an order dated 24.04.2023 imposed upon the appellant penalty of Rs.15,000/- treating her as to be Ex-Public Information Officer. Putting to challenge the said order of the State Information Commissioner, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court giving rise to W.P.(C) No.20436 of 2023 on various grounds including the ground that she was not given adequate opportunity to present her case before the State Information Commissioner.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ application with a finding that notices were served upon the ap