Penalty under RTI Section 20(1) requires proven mala fide intent; mere delay or lack of diligence is insufficient.

The Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer and Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), received two RTI applications from Respondent No. 2 seeking information regarding electricity grievance cases

As the information pertained to a different office, the Petitioner forwarded the applications to the Junior Engineer (JE), Sakri, on 07.11.2017

The JE failed to provide the information within the stipulated 30 days due to being away for training

Following a first appeal, the information was eventually provided by both the JE and the First Appellate Authority

Despite this, the Respondent No. 1 (Information Commission) initiated show-cause proceedings and subsequently issued orders dated 06.03.2020 imposing the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 in each case upon the Petitioner for the delay

The Court primarily applied Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which empowers the Commission to impose penalties only if a PIO has, without reasonable cause, refused an application, delayed information, or acted mala fide

The Court also relied on Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act, regarding the assistance of other officers and the liability of such "deemed PIOs"

Furthermore, the Court applied the precedent set in Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (WA No. 215/2020), which established that the power to impose penalty is not mechanical or automatic but requires a reasoned finding of mala fide intent or lack of reasonable cause

The Court observed that the Petitioner acted bona fide by immediately transferring the RTI application to the relevant custodian of information (the JE, Sakri) within a week of receipt

Under Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, once the application was forwarded, the JE became the "deemed PIO" responsible for the delay, which in this case was attributed to the JE's official training schedule rather than the Petitioner's negligence

The Court found that the Respondent No. 1 failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 20(1), as there was no evidence of the Petitioner deliberately withholding or destroying information

The Commission’s decision to impose the maximum penalty—despite acknowledging that the Petitioner had forwarded the request—was deemed an arbitrary and mechanical exercise of power that ignored the absence of mala fides

Both writ petitions were allowed, and the orders dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing a total penalty of ₹50,000 were quashed