KRIPA SHANKER Vs. CENTRE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the imposition of maximum penalty under the Right to Information Act (hereafter referred as "RTI Act") for Rs. 25,000/-. It is contended that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has nowhere recorded that the information withheld was mala fide or for extraneous purposes and in the circumstances the penalty imposed was unjustified.

(2.) Applicant had sought information on 1-6-2013. Since the concerned designated CPIO was not possessed of the information, the application was forwarded to the present appellant under provisions of the RTI Act on 4-6-2013. The appellant, however, did not follow-up and instead appears to have marked the application to the concerned Head Clerk. On 19-9-2013, the First Appellate Authority directed that the information be provided to the applicant with the particulars sought by him. However, nothing further happened. It triggered a complaint to the CIC - which was treated as a second appeal. By its order, the CIC directed imposition of penalty, after issuing show cause notice to the appellant and concluding that no justifiable reason had been made out for withholding the information for four years.

(3.) It is contended that the procedure adopted by the CIC is not supported by law and, furthermore, in the absence of a finding with respect to mala fides, the penalty could not have been imposed.