Court quashes penalty under RTI Act for delayed info, citing natural disaster as valid reason.

The court found the penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for delayed information provision to be unjustified and arbitrary. The petitioner's explanation of staff engagement in essential tasks due to a natural disaster was considered a reasonable ground for the delay. As the respondent did not contest the information received and the delay was due to exceptional circumstances, the court quashed the penalty order, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for delayed information provision.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a penalty imposed against the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing delayed information to the respondent. The petitioner, an Executive Officer of a Municipal Board, received an application from the respondent, a practicing Advocate, seeking certain information. While some information was provided on time, other details were supplied with a delay. The petitioner explained that the delay was due to the staff's engagement in data collection, voter identity card preparation, and rescue work post a natural disaster, which hindered the prompt furnishing of information.

The court analyzed Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, emphasizing that penalties can be imposed if information is not provided without reasonable cause. The judge highlighted that if there was a valid reason for the delay, the penalty should not be imposed solely based on the delay in supplying information. In this case, the respondent did not appear during the appeal hearing, indicating satisfaction with the information received. Additionally, the petitioner's explanation of staff engagement in essential tasks due to a natural calamity was deemed a reasonable ground for the delay in providing information.

Consequently, the court found the imposition of a penalty for the delay in supplying information to be unjustified and arbitrary. The judgment allowed the writ petition, thereby quashing the order dated 10-9-2013 that imposed the penalty. The decision was based on the understanding that the delay was justified due to exceptional circumstances, including the natural disaster and the subsequent engagement of the Municipal Board staff in critical tasks, leading to the delayed provision of information.

---