RTI reply adequacy and penalty threshold: dissatisfaction alone does not justify penal action without mala fide conduct.

The information supplied, including the clarification given at hearing, was found adequate under the RTI framework, so no further disclosure direction was warranted. The separate grievance about cable laying and alleged disturbance of easement rights was treated as a collateral civil dispute outside RTI adjudication. Penal action against the CPIO was declined because no mala fide conduct, unreasonable refusal, knowingly incorrect information, or denial without reasonable cause was established. The matter was therefore closed without relief, and dissatisfaction with the reply alone was held insufficient to attract RTI penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reply furnished by the public authority was adequate and called for any further direction; and (ii) whether penal action under the RTI Act was warranted against the CPIO.

Issue (i): whether the reply furnished by the public authority was adequate and called for any further direction.

Analysis: The complaint was examined on the basis of the record and the hearing submissions. The information already supplied, along with the additional clarification given during hearing, was found to sufficiently address the queries raised under the RTI framework. The grievance regarding cable laying and alleged disturbance of easement rights was treated as a separate dispute outside the scope of RTI adjudication.

Conclusion: The reply was held to be adequate and no further direction for disclosure was warranted.

Issue (ii): whether penal action under the RTI Act was warranted against the CPIO.

Analysis: Penalty under the RTI Act requires mala fide conduct, unreasonable refusal, knowingly incorrect or misleading information, or denial without reasonable cause. On the material before it, no mala fides or culpable conduct was established against the CPIO. The Commission therefore declined to invoke penal consequences.

Conclusion: Penal action was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The complaints were not found to justify any further statutory action, and the matter stood closed with no relief to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under the RTI Act cannot be imposed merely because the applicant remains dissatisfied with the reply; it is attracted only where mala fides or absence of reasonable cause is shown, and the Commission cannot adjudicate collateral civil grievances outside the RTI mandate.

---