https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274534 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the reduction of the penalty imposed by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 2,500, payable in ten equal monthly installments. It upheld that penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act are supervisory, not adversarial, and the information seeker has no right to participate. The court clarified that the imposition of penalties is discretionary, not mandatory, as it depends on factors like "reasonable cause" and "malafide intent." The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments, thereby endorsing the discretion exercised by the Single Judge. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274534 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the reduction of the penalty imposed by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 2,500, payable in ten equal monthly installments. It upheld that penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act are supervisory, not adversarial, and the information seeker has no right to participate. The court clarified that the imposition of penalties is discretionary, not mandatory, as it depends on factors like "reasonable cause" and "malafide intent." The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments, thereby endorsing the discretion exercised by the Single Judge. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274534