Samvida Law Associates: Patna: Thursday, 2nd
April 2026.
The Patna High Court refused to cancel a Rs. 25,000 penalty imposed on a government officer under the Right to Information Act. The officer had failed to give information and did not answer a show cause notice from the State Information Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s orders were proper and reasoned. The officer must now pay the penalty to the applicant, or pay extra costs if he delays.
Case Background
This case started with an information request under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On 04.04.2012, respondent no. 4 applied for information relating to mutation applications at the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif, Patna.
At that time, another officer was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna and was the Public Information Officer (PIO). On 30.06.2012, that officer wrote to the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif, asking him to give the required information. This showed that the earlier officer started the process.
On 12.07.2012, the petitioner took charge as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna in place of the earlier officer. On 06.09.2012, he informed respondent no. 4 that the information should be obtained from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
Not satisfied, respondent no. 4 filed a First Appeal and then a Second Appeal before the Bihar State Information Commission. The Second Appeal was registered as Case No. 76147/2012-13. During this period, the petitioner says that the Circle Officer eventually supplied the information on 06.08.2014 and that a copy was also sent to the Commission.
Meanwhile, on 10.09.2014, the Commission issued notice to the petitioner. He was asked to explain why the information had not been given and why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. The petitioner remained in the post for almost eleven more months.
On 12.08.2015, the petitioner was transferred, and on 14.08.2015 he handed over charge and joined a new post in the Bihar State Housing Board. The final hearing before the Commission took place on 28.09.2015, when neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 4 was present. The Commission then passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
This penalty order, dated 28.09.2015, was communicated to the petitioner through memo no. 11920 dated 01.10.2015. The petitioner then sought review before the Commission, which was heard on 27.11.2015. The Commission refused to change its earlier order and directed that the penalty be executed. This order was communicated by memo no. 13991 dated 16.12.2015.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016, challenging both the orders of the Commission.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner asked the Patna High Court to quash the penalty order dated 28.09.2015 in Case No. 76147/12-13 and all subsequent orders, including the order dated 27.11.2015 refusing review.
He argued that the information sought by respondent no. 4 was essentially available with the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif. According to him, his predecessor had already acted promptly by writing to the Circle Officer on 30.06.2012. He further said that he himself had asked respondent no. 4, by letter dated 06.09.2012, to seek the information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
The petitioner claimed that the information was eventually given to respondent no. 4 on 06.08.2014 by the Circle Officer and that a copy was sent to the State Information Commission. He emphasised that he was transferred on 12.08.2015 and handed over charge on 14.08.2015, so he could not be present on 28.09.2015 when the Commission passed the penalty order. He submitted that his review petition was wrongly rejected, and the penalty should be set aside.
Counsel for the State Information Commission opposed the petition. She pointed out that the notice dated 10.09.2014 was issued while the petitioner was still in office. He continued as PIO for nearly eleven months after that notice.
The Commission’s counsel argued that the notice required the petitioner to reply on two points: first, why the information had not been given; and second, why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. There was no material on record to show that the petitioner ever filed any show cause on these points.
She further highlighted that although the petitioner claimed that the information was given to respondent no. 4 and that a copy was sent to the Commission, there was no acknowledgment or record on file to support this. In such circumstances, the Commission was justified in holding that the PIO had failed in his duty and in imposing the penalty.
The High Court carefully reviewed the records and accepted that the previous Deputy Collector, before the petitioner, had acted promptly by seeking information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif. However, once the petitioner took over, the Court found that he failed to carry the matter to its logical end.
The Court noted that when respondent no. 4 filed the Second Appeal, the case was pending before the Commission and the petitioner, as PIO, was served with notice. At that stage, he should have acted in a professional manner, ensured timely supply of information, and responded to the show cause notice.
Instead, he did not submit any show cause explaining the delay or opposing the proposed penalty. Even his claim that the information had already been given was not backed by any acknowledgment from respondent no. 4 or by any proof before the Commission.
The Court then examined Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This provision empowers the Central or State Information Commission to impose penalty on a Public Information Officer if, without reasonable cause, he refuses to receive an RTI application, fails to give information in time, denies information malafidely, gives incorrect or misleading information, destroys information, or obstructs access in any manner.
Under this section, the Commission can impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The law also clearly says that the burden of proving that the PIO acted reasonably and diligently lies on the PIO himself.
Applying this provision, the Patna High Court held that the Commission had considered the relevant facts and only then passed its orders dated 28.09.2015 and 27.11.2015. The Commission found that repeated chances were given to the petitioner but he did not respond, nor did he provide the information in time.
Justice Rajiv Roy held that the Commission’s orders were reasoned and did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Court underlined the very purpose of the RTI Act: to empower citizens to know how the Government functions, to make them active participants instead of passive subjects, and to ensure accountability of officers in a democratic setup.
The Court observed that when an officer does not provide necessary information, it defeats the very purpose for which the RTI Act was enacted. In such cases, the Commission is bound to act and enforce responsibility by imposing penalty where appropriate.
At the same time, the Court took note of one practical aspect. By the time the penalty order was passed on 28.09.2015, the petitioner was no longer posted in that office. There was also no representation before the Commission by the new incumbent PIO, so the Commission may not have been fully aware of later developments.
Considering this, the Court gave a limited relief. It directed that while the penalty of Rs. 25,000 would stand, payment of this amount and the penalty order itself would not affect the petitioner’s service career. In other words, it should not be used adversely in his service record or for future consideration.
The Court then turned to the question of payment of the penalty. It held that much time had already passed since the penalty order, and it was now “high time” for the petitioner to pay the amount. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 to respondent no. 4 within four weeks.
If the petitioner fails to pay within four weeks, respondent no. 4 will be entitled to an additional cost of Rs. 5,000, to be paid by the petitioner after that period. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of as being without merit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all government officers who act as Public Information Officers under the RTI Act, and for citizens who use RTI to get information.
It shows that once a PIO receives an RTI application and later a notice from the Information Commission, he cannot simply ignore it or pass the responsibility to another office. He must ensure that the information is given in time and that he replies to any show cause notice.
The Patna High Court confirms that the State Information Commission has full power to impose penalty when there is delay or non-supply of information, especially when the officer does not even respond to the notice. The burden is on the officer to prove that he acted reasonably and diligently.
At the same time, the Court balanced fairness by directing that the penalty should not spoil the officer’s service record, keeping in view that he had been transferred when the final order was passed.
For citizens, this decision reinforces that the RTI Act is meant to work in practice. If an officer fails to provide information and ignores notices, the Commission and the Courts will support penalty so that the right to information remains meaningful.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the Bihar State Information Commission was justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for delayed and incomplete response to an RTI application.
No previous judicial decisions were cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment. The Court mainly referred to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016
Link to Judgment: Clickhere to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
The Patna High Court refused to cancel a Rs. 25,000 penalty imposed on a government officer under the Right to Information Act. The officer had failed to give information and did not answer a show cause notice from the State Information Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s orders were proper and reasoned. The officer must now pay the penalty to the applicant, or pay extra costs if he delays.
This case started with an information request under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On 04.04.2012, respondent no. 4 applied for information relating to mutation applications at the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif, Patna.
At that time, another officer was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna and was the Public Information Officer (PIO). On 30.06.2012, that officer wrote to the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif, asking him to give the required information. This showed that the earlier officer started the process.
On 12.07.2012, the petitioner took charge as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna in place of the earlier officer. On 06.09.2012, he informed respondent no. 4 that the information should be obtained from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
Not satisfied, respondent no. 4 filed a First Appeal and then a Second Appeal before the Bihar State Information Commission. The Second Appeal was registered as Case No. 76147/2012-13. During this period, the petitioner says that the Circle Officer eventually supplied the information on 06.08.2014 and that a copy was also sent to the Commission.
Meanwhile, on 10.09.2014, the Commission issued notice to the petitioner. He was asked to explain why the information had not been given and why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. The petitioner remained in the post for almost eleven more months.
On 12.08.2015, the petitioner was transferred, and on 14.08.2015 he handed over charge and joined a new post in the Bihar State Housing Board. The final hearing before the Commission took place on 28.09.2015, when neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 4 was present. The Commission then passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
This penalty order, dated 28.09.2015, was communicated to the petitioner through memo no. 11920 dated 01.10.2015. The petitioner then sought review before the Commission, which was heard on 27.11.2015. The Commission refused to change its earlier order and directed that the penalty be executed. This order was communicated by memo no. 13991 dated 16.12.2015.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016, challenging both the orders of the Commission.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner asked the Patna High Court to quash the penalty order dated 28.09.2015 in Case No. 76147/12-13 and all subsequent orders, including the order dated 27.11.2015 refusing review.
He argued that the information sought by respondent no. 4 was essentially available with the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif. According to him, his predecessor had already acted promptly by writing to the Circle Officer on 30.06.2012. He further said that he himself had asked respondent no. 4, by letter dated 06.09.2012, to seek the information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
The petitioner claimed that the information was eventually given to respondent no. 4 on 06.08.2014 by the Circle Officer and that a copy was sent to the State Information Commission. He emphasised that he was transferred on 12.08.2015 and handed over charge on 14.08.2015, so he could not be present on 28.09.2015 when the Commission passed the penalty order. He submitted that his review petition was wrongly rejected, and the penalty should be set aside.
Counsel for the State Information Commission opposed the petition. She pointed out that the notice dated 10.09.2014 was issued while the petitioner was still in office. He continued as PIO for nearly eleven months after that notice.
The Commission’s counsel argued that the notice required the petitioner to reply on two points: first, why the information had not been given; and second, why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. There was no material on record to show that the petitioner ever filed any show cause on these points.
She further highlighted that although the petitioner claimed that the information was given to respondent no. 4 and that a copy was sent to the Commission, there was no acknowledgment or record on file to support this. In such circumstances, the Commission was justified in holding that the PIO had failed in his duty and in imposing the penalty.
The High Court carefully reviewed the records and accepted that the previous Deputy Collector, before the petitioner, had acted promptly by seeking information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif. However, once the petitioner took over, the Court found that he failed to carry the matter to its logical end.
The Court noted that when respondent no. 4 filed the Second Appeal, the case was pending before the Commission and the petitioner, as PIO, was served with notice. At that stage, he should have acted in a professional manner, ensured timely supply of information, and responded to the show cause notice.
Instead, he did not submit any show cause explaining the delay or opposing the proposed penalty. Even his claim that the information had already been given was not backed by any acknowledgment from respondent no. 4 or by any proof before the Commission.
The Court then examined Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This provision empowers the Central or State Information Commission to impose penalty on a Public Information Officer if, without reasonable cause, he refuses to receive an RTI application, fails to give information in time, denies information malafidely, gives incorrect or misleading information, destroys information, or obstructs access in any manner.
Under this section, the Commission can impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The law also clearly says that the burden of proving that the PIO acted reasonably and diligently lies on the PIO himself.
Applying this provision, the Patna High Court held that the Commission had considered the relevant facts and only then passed its orders dated 28.09.2015 and 27.11.2015. The Commission found that repeated chances were given to the petitioner but he did not respond, nor did he provide the information in time.
Justice Rajiv Roy held that the Commission’s orders were reasoned and did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Court underlined the very purpose of the RTI Act: to empower citizens to know how the Government functions, to make them active participants instead of passive subjects, and to ensure accountability of officers in a democratic setup.
The Court observed that when an officer does not provide necessary information, it defeats the very purpose for which the RTI Act was enacted. In such cases, the Commission is bound to act and enforce responsibility by imposing penalty where appropriate.
At the same time, the Court took note of one practical aspect. By the time the penalty order was passed on 28.09.2015, the petitioner was no longer posted in that office. There was also no representation before the Commission by the new incumbent PIO, so the Commission may not have been fully aware of later developments.
Considering this, the Court gave a limited relief. It directed that while the penalty of Rs. 25,000 would stand, payment of this amount and the penalty order itself would not affect the petitioner’s service career. In other words, it should not be used adversely in his service record or for future consideration.
The Court then turned to the question of payment of the penalty. It held that much time had already passed since the penalty order, and it was now “high time” for the petitioner to pay the amount. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 to respondent no. 4 within four weeks.
If the petitioner fails to pay within four weeks, respondent no. 4 will be entitled to an additional cost of Rs. 5,000, to be paid by the petitioner after that period. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of as being without merit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all government officers who act as Public Information Officers under the RTI Act, and for citizens who use RTI to get information.
It shows that once a PIO receives an RTI application and later a notice from the Information Commission, he cannot simply ignore it or pass the responsibility to another office. He must ensure that the information is given in time and that he replies to any show cause notice.
The Patna High Court confirms that the State Information Commission has full power to impose penalty when there is delay or non-supply of information, especially when the officer does not even respond to the notice. The burden is on the officer to prove that he acted reasonably and diligently.
At the same time, the Court balanced fairness by directing that the penalty should not spoil the officer’s service record, keeping in view that he had been transferred when the final order was passed.
For citizens, this decision reinforces that the RTI Act is meant to work in practice. If an officer fails to provide information and ignores notices, the Commission and the Courts will support penalty so that the right to information remains meaningful.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the Bihar State Information Commission was justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for delayed and incomplete response to an RTI application.
No previous judicial decisions were cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment. The Court mainly referred to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016
Link to Judgment: Clickhere to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
.JPG)
.JPG)
