Court quashes penalty for delayed information supply, emphasizes timely provision under RTI

The Court quashed the Central Information Commission's penalty of Rs.25,000 imposed on the petitioner for delayed supply of information under Section 20. The Court found no malafide intent in withholding information and directed the refund of the penalty amount within four weeks. The judgment emphasized the significance of timely information provision under the Right to Information Act and stressed the need for the Commission to evaluate delays and refusals reasonably and diligently.

---

---

Issues involved: Delayed supply of information, penalty imposed by CIC under Section 20, appeal against CIC order.

Delayed supply of information: The applicant sought information in August 2006, which was forwarded to Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development. The Public Information Officer (PIO) received the application on 9.10.2007 and forwarded it to various agencies. The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted delays in furnishing information and granted time until 31.3.2007 for production of records. The petitioner contended that some information had been weeded out as per a policy decision. The applicant expressed satisfaction with the information received by March 2007.

Penalty imposed by CIC under Section 20: CIC directed recovery of penalty of Rs.25,000 in two installments for delayed supply of information. The CIC held that the penalty order issued on 31.5.2007 would bind the petitioner, despite the applicant's request to drop the proceedings. Section 20 empowers CIC to impose penalties for unreasonable delays or malafide denials of information.

Appeal against CIC order: The Court found that the assumption made by CIC regarding the date of the information application was incorrect. The Court observed that there were no allegations to establish malafide withholding of information by the petitioner. The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to succeed, quashing the impugned orders and directing refund of the penalty amount within four weeks.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely provision of information under the Right to Information Act and the need for CIC to assess delays and refusals to provide information in a reasonable and diligent manner.

---