Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Four ₹25,000 RTI Penalties Against Forest PIO, Citing Later Disclosure And Unassessed Explanation

Respondent No. 4 sought certified copies of cash books and financial permissions relating to CAMPA and MGNREGA funds through an RTI application dated 1 June 2020.

The petitioner, then the Public Information Officer (PIO), refused disclosure by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Respondent No. 4 complained directly to the State Information Commission under Section 18.

The Commission imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 in each of four cases under Section 20(1).

The petitioner challenged those orders, citing the volume and non-specific nature of the request, staff shortages, and the subsequent supply of the information.

Respondent No. 4 confirmed that the information had since been supplied and that he was satisfied with it.

Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 operate in distinct fields: Section 18 empowers the Information Commission to receive and inquire into specified complaints, while Section 19 provides an appellate remedy against a PIO’s decision.

Under Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1, the Commission cannot use Section 18 to direct disclosure; a person seeking that relief must pursue the Section 19 appeal mechanism.

However, failure to pursue the Section 19 remedy does not, by itself, extinguish the Commission’s jurisdiction to inquire into a complaint under Section 18.

Section 20(1) permits a penalty where specified misconduct—such as an unjustified failure to furnish information, a mala fide denial, or obstruction—is established, and requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

As explained in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 2012, decided 13 December 2012, the penalty power must not be exercised mechanically; the Commission must consider the circumstances and the officer’s explanation.

The Court distinguished the Commission’s jurisdiction to inquire under Section 18 from its inability under that provision to order disclosure, observing that the nature of the complaint and relief sought remained relevant.

It did not hold that the Commission lacked jurisdiction merely because respondent No. 4 had not first appealed under Section 19.

On the penalty issue, the Court found that the Commission’s orders did not adequately address the petitioner’s explanation concerning the volume and nature of the request, the circumstances causing delay, or the subsequent supply of information.

Nor did the orders sufficiently establish mala fide conduct or otherwise demonstrate that the statutory conditions for penalty had been met.

Although later disclosure did not automatically absolve the PIO, the penalty could not stand without proper consideration of the statutory requirements and the explanation offered.

As respondent No. 4 confirmed receipt of the information and satisfaction with it, the Court issued no further direction for disclosure.