Penalty under Section 20(1) of RTI Act requires categorical findings of mala fide intent and adherence to natural justice.

The petitioner, an Under Secretary serving as a Public Information Officer (PIO), challenged two orders dated 25.06.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Respondent No. 5 had filed RTI applications seeking information regarding the appointment of the State Information Commissioner

The petitioner denied the request, citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, a decision subsequently upheld by the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

Instead of preferring a Second Appeal under Section 19, Respondent No. 5 filed complaints under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act

The Commission, without serving a show-cause notice or affording a hearing, imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 in each case

1. Whether the State Information Commission could validly entertain a complaint under Section 18 and impose penalties when the complainant failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of a Second Appeal under Section 19

2. Whether the imposition of a penalty under Section 20(1) without recording findings of mala fide intent and without affording the PIO a reasonable opportunity of hearing is legally sustainable

The court primarily applied the procedural scheme of the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically Section 19 regarding the statutory remedy of Second Appeals and Section 18 regarding complaints

It further relied on the mandatory requirements of Section 20(1) of the Act, which stipulates that a penalty can only be imposed if the Commission finds that the PIO denied information "without any reasonable cause" or with "mala fide intent"

The court also applied the principles of natural justice, which require a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the imposition of a penalty

The court observed that Respondent No. 5 bypassed the statutory appellate route under Section 19, erroneously filing a complaint after the FAA had already affirmed the PIO’s decision

The court reasoned that the Commission failed to adhere to the mandatory safeguards of Section 20(1)

It noted that the Commission did not record the necessary categorical findings—specifically, that the PIO acted without reasonable cause or with mala fide intent—before imposing the penalty

Furthermore, the court found the proceedings vitiated because the petitioner was not granted a hearing or served with a show-cause notice, rendering the Commission’s action a mechanical exercise of power in violation of the principles of natural justice and the express provisions of the RTI Act

The court answered the issues in the negative, quashing and setting aside the Commission’s orders dated 25.06.2021

Both writ petitions were allowed, effectively nullifying the ₹25,000 penalties imposed on the petitioner

No costs were awarded