Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, cannot be imposed mechanically; it requires a specific finding of mala fide intent or unreasonable delay. Plausible explanations, such as disruptions caused by the COVID-19 lockdown, negate such intent.

Order on Board

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 26.02.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by Respondent No. 1– Commission, whereby the petitioner has been held to be the Public Information Officer responsible for not providing the requisite information within the prescribed period and for the delay in submitting a reply before the Commission, and consequently, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner..

The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 Call for the entire records of Second Appeal Case No. A/239/2017.

10.2 Set-aside / quash the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 01 Second Appeal Case No. A/239/2017.

10.3 Pass such other order or orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘Act of 2005’). It is contended that the petitioner was never designated as the Public Information Officer at the relevant point of time, nor was the original application dated 20.10.2016 submitted before him. The said application was admittedly filed before and dealt with by the duly appointed Public Information Officer, who had further forwarded the same to the concerned department. In such circumstances, fastening liability upon the petitioner by treating him as a deemed Public Information Officer is misconceived and unsustainable in law.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, in fact, had furnished the information vide letter dated 04.01.2017 upon communication received from the concerned authority, thereby demonstrating his bona fide conduct and due diligence. It is argued that the essential ingredients for imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Act of 2005, namely mala fide denial of information or unreasonable delay attributable to the concerned officer, are completely absent in the present case. Moreover, the petitioner was neither impleaded as a party before the First Appellate Authority nor was he afforded a proper and effective opportunity of hearing before the Respondent Commission, thus vitiating the impugned order on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

4. It is also submitted that the Respondent Commission has failed to appreciate the factual matrix in its correct perspective and has mechanically imposed the penalty without recording any finding as to deliberate or intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner. In absence of any cogent material to establish that the petitioner was responsible for withholding the information or causing delay, the imposition of penalty is wholly unjustified and liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the Corporation submits that the information as sought by respondent No. 3 has already been supplied to him. It is further submitted that insofar as the delay is concerned, the relevant period coincided with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which there was a complete lockdown and normal functioning of offices was severely disrupted. In such extraordinary circumstances, the delay, if any, in furnishing the information cannot be attributed to any deliberate or intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner. It is contended that there was no mala fide intention to withhold the information and, therefore, the essential conditions for imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Act of 20