Section 20 RTI penalties require consideration of reasonable cause and cannot be imposed mechanically.

The petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary and Public Information Officer (PIO), challenged the State Information Commission’s order dated 12.07.2021 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) for allegedly failing to furnish information within the prescribed period.

The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3’s RTI application was received on 14.07.2018, rather than 05.07.2018 as recorded by the Commission, and that by communication dated 09.08.2018 he informed the applicant that the requested information comprised approximately 600 pages and required payment of an additional fee of ₹1,200.

The applicant did not deposit the fee and instead filed a first appeal, which was dismissed on 24.10.2018 after noting the non-payment.

During the proceedings before the State Information Commission, the petitioner and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, placed the same explanation on record.

The petitioner subsequently supplied the information pursuant to the Commission’s direction.

Whether the petitioner had shown a reasonable cause for the alleged delay or non-supply of information so as to avoid penal liability under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Whether the State Information Commission was justified in imposing the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 without adequately considering the petitioner’s explanation or recording a finding of deliberate or mala fide withholding of information.

Section 7(1) of the RTI Act requires the PIO to furnish information within the prescribed period, while Section 20 empowers the Information Commission to impose a penalty where, without reasonable cause, the PIO fails to furnish information within that period, mala fidely denies the request, furnishes incorrect or incomplete information, destroys information, or obstructs its supply.

The power under Section 20 is penal in nature and cannot be exercised mechanically; the Commission must consider whether the PIO had a reasonable cause for the failure.

Relying on Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, the Court held that the explanation of the PIO and the circumstances surrounding the delay must be examined before imposing penalty.

The Court found that the record supported the petitioner’s version that the application was received on 14.07.2018 and that, through the communication dated 09.08.2018, the applicant was informed about the volume of information and the additional fee required for supplying copies.

The applicant’s failure to deposit the fee, and the first appellate authority’s acknowledgment of that failure, provided support for the petitioner’s explanation.

Although the information was ultimately supplied pursuant to the Commission’s direction, the Commission’s order did not adequately address the petitioner’s explanation or record a specific, cogent finding that the information had been deliberately or mala fidely withheld.

In these circumstances, mere delay or initial non-supply could not justify imposition of the maximum penalty under the penal provisions of Section 20.

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 was set aside to the extent that it imposed the penalty; any consequential recovery direction was also quashed.

Since the information had already been supplied, no further direction was issued, though Respondent No. 3 was permitted to approach the concerned authorities if he had not received it.

No order as to costs was made.