The imposition of a penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requires strict compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and a demonstrated finding of malafide or unreasonable delay, which cannot be invoked during extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic.

Order on Board

1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 26.8.2021 (Annexure P/9) passed by Respondent No.2 in Second Appeal No.A/3994/2020. By the impugned order, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed upon Petitioner No.2 under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth “the Act of 2005”) for the alleged non- compliance of the order dated 20.5.2020 passed in the First Appeal. It is contended by the Petitioner that the said order dated 20.5.2020 was never served upon her. Furthermore, upon gaining knowledge of the directions, the Petitioner supplied 178 pages of the requested documents.

2. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in the petition :

10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling relevant records pertaining to case of petitioners for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case.

10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing order dated 26.8.2021 (Annexure P-9) imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- in alleged exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act of 2005 and recovery thereof from the amount payable to petitioner No.2 as salary, being arbitrary, illegal, beyond scope of Section 20 of the Act of 2005 and in violation of principles of natural justice as also petitioners' fundamental, constitutional and other rights.

10.3 Cost of the proceedings.

10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstance of case.

3. Succinctly stated facts of the case, as canvassed by the Petitioners, are that Petitioner No.2 is the Principal of Petitioner No.1-College and by virtue of her office, serves as the Public Information Officer (PIO). Respondent No.5 is a ‘chronic litigant’ who has consistently acted with the intent to disparage the reputation of the institution. On 24.1.2020, an application was moved by Respondent No.5 under the Act of 2005 seeking copy of service book. Thereafter, on 1/2-3-2020, he filed another application stating that he is ready to pay requisite charges for issuance of a certified copy of service book. Initially, the Petitioners withheld the information on the ground that an objection had been raised by the Local Fund Audit with regard to conduct of respondent No.5. An Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Petitioner-College to investigate the conduct of the said respondent. Subsequently, respondent No.5 filed First Appeal No.305/2020 on 7.3.2020 under the Act of 2005. The First Appellate Authority heard the matter on 20.5.2020 and passed an order on the same day directing that the requested information be provided within a period of 15 days, free of cost. This order was passed ex-parte and without notice to the petitioners, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the maxim audi alteram partem. According to the Petitioners, the order dated 20.5.2020 was never served upon them. After receiving notice of Second Appeal No.A/3994/2020 for hearing through video conferencing, the petitioners discovered the existence of the previous order. Notwithstanding the non-service, the Petitioners demonstrated bonafide intent by immediately supplying 178 pages of documents to respondent No.5 free of cost. The Petitioners have also taken a ground of COVID-19 pandemic, contending that the procedure for hearing before the judicial/quasi judicial authorities underwent a significant change during the said period on account of