2012 (3) TMI 616 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Notice to the appellant in penalty proceedings.
2. Mandatory nature of penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act.
3. Judicial review of penalty imposed by CIC.

Summary:

1. Notice to the appellant in penalty proceedings:
The appellant contended that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice to the appellant, who had sought the information u/s 20 of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the penalty proceedings are adversarial and the information seeker should be heard. However, the court held that the information seeker has no right of participation in penalty proceedings, which are between the CIC and the erring information officer. The court referenced its judgment in Ankur Mutreja v. Delhi University, stating that the role of the CIC is supervisory and not merely adjudicatory, and the information seeker does not have a locus in penalty proceedings beyond the decision of the complaint/appeal.

2. Mandatory nature of penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act:
The appellant argued that the use of the word "shall" in Section 20(1) indicates that the imposition of penalty is mandatory. The court, however, noted that the imposition of penalty is dependent on variables such as "without reasonable cause," "malafidely," "knowingly," and "reasonably and diligently." The court held that these expressions are relative and indicative of discretion vested in the authority imposing the punishment. The court cited precedents where similar language was interpreted as not mandating an absolute imperative but allowing for discretion.

3. Judicial review of penalty imposed by CIC:
The court held that the quantum of fine is discretionary and subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found that the learned Single Judge had valid reasons for reducing the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 2,500, recoverable in ten equal monthly installments. The court upheld the discretion exercised by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the reduction of the penalty by the learned Single Judge and affirming that the information seeker has no right to participate in penalty proceedings, which are supervisory in nature and not adversarial. The court also clarified that the imposition of penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act is discretionary and not mandatory.