Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001656/SG/14632Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001656/SG
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. A. K. Mohanthy, Chief Manager & Deemed PIO for the delay of 48 days in providing the information as per the order of the Commission, the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of Penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission therefore imposes a penalty on Mr. A. K. Mohanthy at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 48 days i.e. `250 X 48 days=`12000/-
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
13 January 2012
===============================================================================
Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission on 29 May, 2006
Delhi High Court
15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the
extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not
impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this case, the penalty amount (on
account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the
information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is hereby directed
to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit the
amount, with the Commission.
