Is it mandatory to impose penalty for delay under the RTI Act?

Background

The appellant was working as Junior Superintendent at the office of the Tahsildar, Vadakara (Kerala) and was designated as Assistant Public Information Officer under Section 5 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. An application was filed by P.Radhakrishnan with the Public Information Officer (PIO) who IN TURN made a request to the APIO under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, but the application was returned with some sarcastic comments resulting into non-supply of the requested information. P.Radhakrishnan preferred a complaint before the State Information Commission (SIC) which issued a show cause to the appellant to for imposing penalty. After hearing the appellant, the SIC, arrived at a conclusion that the request of the P.Radhakrishnan for information was declined by the appellant for no good reason and there was delay of seven months in supply of information. Under Section 20(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. of the Act, the SIC imposed, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- against the appellant which was challenged by the appellant vide W.P.(c) 10817 of 2008. By the judgment dated 8.4.2000, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with order which led to the second appeal.

The bench found that the information requested by the second respondent was declined by the appellant for no good reason and there was delay of seven months in getting information. The bench noted that the SIC as well as the learned Single Judge had considered the circumstances leading to the denial of the request for information and rightly arrived at a conclusion that there was willful omission on the side of the appellant to give the information requested for.

The bench held that it is a finding on facts and there was no error to be rectified in appeal. The failure to furnish the information is penal under Section 20 of the Act and the order imposing penalty is in tune with Section 20.

The bench confirmed the order imposing penalty, but reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only), taking note of the fact that the appellant is not a highly paid officer and this is a first instance at his hands.

Comments

This is the first case of its kind where a judicial body, that too, at the level of a division bench of High Court has reduced the penalty of the ground that:-

1.  it is a first instance at his hands, and
2. The APIO is not a highly paid officer.

As per section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, “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…”

It raises the question whether the worthy High Court has created new grounds for waiver of penalty.

[Janilkumar, Tahsildar, Kozhikode Vs State Information Commission, Kerala and others in WA.No. 1553 of 2008 IN WPC NO.10817/2008 In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]