Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2242
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Raj Bala – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) – Respondent
CIC/DELJB/A/2024/601725
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinay Kumar
For the Respondents: Naresh Dargan, B P Yadav, Y D Sharma
Penal action under the RTI Act requires proof of malafide intent, which was absent in this case.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 20(1) - Delay in providing information - Appellant filed RTI seeking action against CPIO for delay; Respondent explained delay due to organizational restructuring - Delay found unintentional; no malafide intent established. (Paras 8-12)
(B) Penal Action - No penal action warranted as no malafide intent was demonstrated by the PIO. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding actions taken against CPIO for delays in responses. The Respondent explained the delays were due to restructuring within the organization.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found no malafide intent in the delays and condoned them.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in providing information warranted penal action against the CPIO.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that penalties under the RTI Act require proof of malafide intent, which was absent in this case.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application filed seeking information regarding actions against cpio. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent provided explanations for delays due to restructuring. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's dissatisfaction with the response and request for penal action. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. commission condoned delays, noting they were unintentional. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. no penal action due to absence of malafide intent. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
“1) Copy of action taken against CPIO as per order or judgment of central information commission against CPIO vide complaint no. CIC/DELJB/C/2022/629523 UM, attached with the RTI application.
2) Copy of departmental inquiry against CPIO being the violation of RTI Act 2005.
3) Copy of Show cause notice as submitted in CIC in reply of complaint no. CIC/DELJB/C/2022/629523 UM, attached with the RTI application. as per commissions directions.
4) Copy of Compliance taken by Delhi Jal Board as per directions of Central Information Commission in respect of complaint no. CIC/DELJB/C/2022/629523 UM, attached with the RTI application.
2) Copy of departmental inquiry against CPIO being the violation of RTI Act 2005.
3) Copy of Show cause notice as submitted in CIC in reply of complaint no. CIC/DELJE/C/2022/629523 UM, attached with the RTI application. as per commissions directions.
4) Copy of Compliance taken by Delhi Jal Board as per directions of Central Information Commission in respect of complaint no. CIC/DELJB/C/2022/629523 UM, attached with the RTI application.”
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
4. A written submission dated 15.05.2025 filed by Shri Naresh Kumar SE (PR)-I, DJB, Varunalaya-I, Karol bagh, Delhi which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
| Date | Description | Remarks |
| 10.04.2022 | The applicant filed 1st online RTI | |
| 24.05.2022 | The applicant filed an appeal with FAA for not receiving proper reply | |
| 22.07.2022 | Hearing was done before FAA on 22.07.2022 and FAA directed PIO/APIO to send corrected/revised point wise reply to the applicant and appeal was disposed off. | Copy of FAA orders dt. 22.07.2022 are attach as Annexure A. |
| 01.10.2022 | PIO/APIO sent revised reply to the applicant on 01.10.2022 through speed post | Copy of forwarding letter with copy of speed post receipt is attached as Annexure B. |
| 12.12.2022 | The hearing before CIC was held on 12.12.2022 where the applicant and APIO was present. The applicant complained for receiving the reply after 132 days and requested for penalty against PIO/CPIO. | Hon’ble CIC directed APIO to submit the explanation for delayed reply sent to the applicant to the Commission by 12.01.2023. Copy is attached as Annexure C. This order of CIC could not reach the PIO due to restructuring of Engineering as well as revenue wing in DJB. The PIO for revenue cases was changed from Revenue Wing to Engineering wing. Therefore the reply from the new PIO could not be submitted to CIC in time. |
| 01.03.2023 | The applicant approached again Hon’ble CIC for not receiving a copy of explanation sent to CIC by PIO. The case was heard before CIC on 01.03.2023 and Hon’ble CIC directed CPIO for why not a penalty of 25000/- be imposed for not submitting the explanation | Copy of CIC orders dt. 03.03.2023 is attached as |
| 24.03.2023 | After receiving the notice from CIC routing from various offices of DJB, APIO Sh. Roop Narayan, Zonal Revenue Officer, DJB submitted the explanation to Hon’ble CIC on 24.02.2023 and submitted the non-appearance of APIO on 01.03.2023 was unintentional and requested for exemption. | Copy attached as Annexure - E. |
| 15.09.2023 | The applicant filed a second online RTI on 15.09.2023 seeking action taken against CPIO for not submitting the explanation to CIC as per | |
