The court established that penalties under the RTI Act necessitate a fair hearing and a reasoned opinion regarding defaults before imposing actions against officials.

O R D E R

Heard Mr. S.Sathia Chandran, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

C.Vigneswaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Second and Third Respondents and Mr. S.Makesh, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The grievance ventilated by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the First Respondent in the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in the Second Appeal in Case No. 7378/A/2021 preferred by the Petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), while directing disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the erring Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority under Section 20(2) of the Act, has not imposed any penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act.

3. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 20 of the Act, which reads as follows:~

“20. Penalties:-

(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub~section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty~five thousand rupees;

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub~section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manohar -vs- State of Maharashtra [(2012) 13 SCC 14] has explained in detail the manner in which the State Information Commission has to exercise its powers conferred by Section 20 of the Act, as follows:-

“15. The State Information Commissions exercise very wide and certainly quasi~judicial powers. In fact their functioning is akin to the judicial system rather than the executive decision~making process. It is a settled principle of law and does not require us to discuss this principle with any elaboration that adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory for such Tribunal or bodies discharging such functions.

16. The State Information Commission has been vested with wide powers in