Karnataka HC Quashes ₹25,000 RTI Penalty, Finding Official Made Some Effort To Respond Despite Unproved Delivery of His Reply

In brief

The question

Whether the Commission’s imposition of a ₹25,000 penalty was justified where the petitioner produced evidence of an effort to respond to the RTI application, but not proof that the response reached the applicant.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Commission’s order dated 5 December 2023 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner.

It also directed

No order was made as to costs.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2 sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by application dated 16 May 2023.

p. 3

The petitioner, then an officer in the land-records department, stated that he responded on 23 May 2023, providing some documents but withholding a notice issued to a surveyor on the ground that it was third-party personal information protected by Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

p. 3

Respondent No. 2 complained that the information had not been furnished. The State Information Commission rejected the petitioner’s explanation, finding that he had not proved the information was received, and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000.

p. 4

In the writ proceedings, the petitioner produced an extract of the outward register showing a registered article addressed to respondent No. 2. The Court recorded that the article was booked on 25 May 2025, while treating the dispatch as evidence of an effort to respond to the 2023 application.

pp. 5–6

Respondent No. 2, though served, did not appear.

pp. 6–7

02Issues

i.Whether the Commission’s imposition of a ₹25,000 penalty was justified where the petitioner produced evidence of an effort to respond to the RTI application, but not proof that the response reached the applicant.

pp. 6–7

ii.Whether the penalty order should be quashed in the circumstances of the case.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The Court considered the Right to Information Act, 2005, including Section 8(1)(j), which the petitioner invoked to withhold information said to concern a third party’s personal information, and Section 18, under which the Commission’s penalty action was challenged and reviewed.

p. 3, 7

The Court’s stated approach was that, on the facts, evidence of efforts to respond meant the case was not one of complete dereliction of duty and did not warrant imposition of a penalty.

p. 7

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8 Section 18

04Reasoning

The outward-register extract and the documents produced before the Court showed that the petitioner had taken steps to respond to the request.

pp. 5–6

The Court accepted that the register did not establish that the postal article had reached respondent No. 2, but held that the absence of proof of delivery did not establish complete failure to act.

p. 7

Given those efforts, the Court considered the case unsuitable for a penalty and held that the Commission’s decision to impose ₹25,000 was liable to be interfered with.

p. 7