Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order On Board

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the State Information Commission, Chhattisgarh, whereby though a direction has been issued for furnishing information to the petitioner, the Commission has declined to impose penalty upon Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Public Information Officer).

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, claiming to be an environmental activist, sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the RTI Act”) vide application dated 21.02.2019 in relation to proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 109/2008 (Wildlife First & Others vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others) pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said request was declined by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court and further by referring to Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a first appeal; however, according to the petitioner, no effective relief was granted. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission, vide impugned order dated 09.09.2020, held that the information sought did not fall within the exemption under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act and directed that information be supplied to the petitioner. However, the Commission declined to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act upon Respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order to the limited extent of non- imposition of penalty and seeking imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon Respondent No. 2.

3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to the set aside the impugned order to the extent that the penalty has not been imposed and the Hon'ble Court may kindly impose penalty of Rs. 25000 upon the Respondent no.2.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the State Information Commission has recorded a finding that denial of information was unjustified, it was incumbent upon the Commission to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that there was delay in furnishing the information and no reasonable cause was assigned by Respondent No. 2. Hence, the ingredients of Section 20 stood satisfied. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Mujibur Rehman vs. Central Information Commission [2009 SCC Online Del 1149] to contend that in absence of reasonable cause, imposition of penalty is mandatory.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the power to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act is discretionary in nature and depends upon the satisfaction of the Commission regarding absence of reasonable cause and existence of malafides. It is further submitted that in the present case, the denial of information was based on a bona fide understanding that the matter was sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore the Commission has rightly exercised its discretion in not imposing penalty.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is just and proper and calls for no interference, as Respondent No. 2 had denied the information under a bona fide belief that the matter being sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was exempt from disclosure. It is contended that mere erroneous interpretation of Section 8(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not automatically attract penalty unde