Under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, a penalty can only be imposed if it is proven that the Information Officer acted with malafides or unreasonable conduct; an incorrect decision or failure to supply information per se does not establish liability for penalty.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18 - Complaint against non-supply of information - Malafide intent - Determination of - The Commission held that in proceedings under Section 18, the scope is limited to determining if there was wilful concealment or malafides - Mere incorrect or incomplete information without proof of malafide conduct does not warrant penalty under Section 20 of the Act. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Complainant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding action taken on his complaint concerning the illegal pruning of trees in violation of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response and the offer to inspect records only during a hearing, the Complainant filed a complaint before the Commission.

Findings of Court:
The Commission noted that while the CPIO's offer of inspection was not in alignment with RTI Act provisions, there was no evidence of malafide intent. Relying on judicial precedents, the Commission held that penalty proceedings are not automatic following an incorrect decision but require proof of malafide or unreasonable conduct.

Issues: Whether the CPIO's failure to provide full information and the manner of offering inspection constitute wilful concealment or malafide conduct under Section 18 of the RTI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An inquiry under Section 18 is limited to adjudicating whether there was willful concealment or malafides; in the absence of such evidence, no penalty can be imposed solely because the Information Officer's previous view was incorrect.

Result: Complaint disposed of.

Table of Content
1. summary of rti application, cpio reply, and faa's finding regarding access to records. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural history of the current complaint before the commission. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. the scope of section 18 is limited to adjudicating malafides for imposing penalties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

O R D E R

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 11.11.2024	FA : 04.02.2025	Complaint : 30.08.2025
CPIO : 20.01.2025	FAO : 10.03.2025	Hearing : 15.01.2026 & 17.03.2026

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024, before the CPIO, Department of Forest & Wildlife, North Forest Division, GNCTD, seeking information as under:

“RTI is of an issue of very larger public interest and is related to, to know the status and to have the information on action taken etc on my Complaint number 20244020 dated 30.09.2024 lodged on 011-23378513, for illegal cutting of big branches of trees in violation of the Permission for pruning of Trees granted by DCF(N)/ Tree Officer, vide letter ref No. F.No. 22138/NFD/TO(N)/TC/Pruning/24-25/4846-49 dated 26.09.2024, for trees standing on MCD Land Opp. H.No. 156, 164, 153, 160 A, 157, 163,147 of AC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088, on 28.09.2024 and again on 30.09.2024, in violation of DPTA, 1994 (Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994).”

xxx

“In this respect, I request for the following information on Complaint number 20244020 dated 30.09.2024.:

1. Please inform me the status of my abovementioned Complaint.

2. Please inform me the action taken on my abovementioned complaint.

3. Please inform me the action taken against the Mr K.P. Sharma, Dy Director (Horticulture) Keshavpuram Zone, MCD, Delhi who is named that he shall be personally responsible in ensuring that no violation of provisions of DPTA, 1994 occurs' as mentioned in the Permission for pruning of Trees granted by DCF(N)/ Tree Officer, vide letter ref No. F.No. 22138/NFD/TO(N)/TC/Pruning/24-25/4846-49 dated 26.09.2024

4. Please give me the entire sequence of flow of my complaint alongwith respective dates of such forwarding / flow of my Complaint with different persons within Public Authority, alongwith the names and designation of all such people to whom my complaint is been forwarded.

5. Please inform me the action taken by each of the official, alongwith dates of such action, to whom my complaint is forwarded.

6. Please provide me with the case file number and other details of the said complaint.

7. Please provide me with the certified copies of the inspection report, along with pictures/photos, for the inspection dome by the authorized representative of Forest Deptt.

8. Please provide me with the certified copies of the Notice Served on all the parties.

9. I am the primary complainant for violation of DPTA, 1994, and as per DPTA, 1994 and also as per the procedures framed for issuing Notice of Hearing, the primary complainant is also to be issued with the 'Notice of Hearing' and called during Hearings, but in this complaint/case I have not received any such Notice of Hearing. So, please inform me that under what clause and for what reasons the 'Notice of Hearing and to be present during hearing' is not issued to me.

10. Please provide me with the details of the hearing(s), heard off so far viz

a. Please inform me name(s) of all those people who are been issued notice of hearing, including people from (i) MCD, (II) AC Block Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088, and (iii) from any other public office(s) and (iv) any other private person(s).

b. Date(s) of all the hearing heard off so far

C. People from all the parties who attended these hearings, for each and every hearing to be given separately.

d. Name and designation of the competent authority in Forest Deptt, GNCTD, before whom the hearing took place

e. Documents submitted by respective parties and submissions made by respective parties, so far in all such hearings. Also please provide me with the copies of all such submissions made by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5250

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONRaj Kumar Goyal, Information CommissionerAkshay Kumar Malhotra – AppellantVersusCPIO Department of Forest & Wildlife – RespondentComplaint No. CIC/DOFWL/C/2025/641322

Under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, a penalty can only be imposed if it is proven that the Information Officer acted with malafides or unreasonable conduct; an incorrect decision or failure to supply information per se does not establish liability for penalty.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Raj Kumar Goyal, Information Commissioner
Akshay Kumar Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
CPIO Department of Forest & Wildlife – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/DOFWL/C/2025/641322