S.21 RTI Act | Public Information Officer Can't Be Penalised For Delay In Furnishing Info If Genuine & Bonafide Reasons Given: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka HIgh Court has quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission directing a Deputy Conservator of Forests (deputed as the Public Information officer) to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI). A single judge bench of Justice C M Poonacha while allowing the petition filed by Ambadi Madhav...
The Karnataka HIgh Court has quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission directing a Deputy Conservator of Forests (deputed as the Public Information officer) to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
A single judge bench of Justice C M Poonacha while allowing the petition filed by Ambadi Madhav said,
"Even if there has been some delay in furnishing the information, it is clear from a perusal of the material available on record that the reasons have been afforded by the Petitioner for delay and the said reasons are genuine and bona fide."
Advocate Srikanth appearing for the petitioner had submitted that voluminous documentary material was sought to be furnished by the Respondent No.2. The requested information was furnished on 04.02.2011 itself. The Respondent No.2 was also addressed a communication for furnishing the deficit copy charges. Despite the deficit copy charges not having been paid, still the further information as sought for was also provided on 05.1.2012.
Further it was said that during the relevant time, when the information was sought, the Petitioner was under deputation from 31.1.2011 to 4.3.2011 and once again from 16.5.2011 to 3.6.2011 and official memorandum dated 11.1.2011 to the writ petition was produced in support of the same. Thus the delay, if any, was due to bona fide reasons and no intentional delay was caused by the Petitioner.
Reliance was placed on Section 21 of the RTI Act which protects the action taken in good faith.
The bench on going through the records said, "Having perused the material on record and after consideration of the submission made by the parties, it is not disputed that the information sought for by the Petitioner has been furnished...It is also forthcoming that the delay is not deliberate in the hands of the petitioner and there is no mala fide intent by the Petitioner to withhold the information sought for by the Respondent No.2."
Under such circumstances, it held that the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by Karnataka Information Commission imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be quashed.
Case Title: AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8288/2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
Date of Order: July 1, 2022
Appearance: SRIKANTH for petitioner; Advocate SHARATH GOWDA, G.B. ADVOCATION FOR R1; A.R.SHASHIKUMAR PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2