Times of India: Chandigarh: Friday, 16th
October 2026.
Taking a serious view of a
six-year delay in furnishing complete information under the RTI Act and
repeated non-compliance with its proceedings, the Punjab State Information
Commission has directed the director, rural development and panchayats, to
identify officials responsible and initiate action against them.
The commission also ordered Rs 5,000 in compensation for the applicant.
The directions were issued by state information commissioner Bhupinder Batth while hearing an appeal that had reached its ninth hearing.
Taking a serious view of the continued default, the commission observed the conduct of the respondent public authority was wholly unacceptable.
During the hearing, the appellant maintained that complete information had not been provided and sought action against the public information officer (PIO) for the delay. The respondent, however, stated that the DDPO office had sent the information to the appellant and handed over a copy during the proceedings. The respondent also submitted replies concerning points 13 and 16 of the RTI application.
The appellant objected to the reply concerning point 16, which stated that records relating to court cases involving Chapparchirhi Khurd village had been transferred to the municipal corporation, Mohali, under Punjab govt orders dated Nov 28, 2025. He pointed out that his RTI application had been filed in 2020 and argued that the explanation provided at this stage was unacceptable.
After examining the record, the commission observed that the matter had reached its ninth hearing and that the concerned PIO had repeatedly failed to comply with the proceedings. It noted that a show-cause notice had been issued, requiring the officer to explain why action under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated. Bailable warrants had also been issued to secure his presence, but he had neither appeared nor furnished an explanation.
The commission described the conduct as a deliberate and persistent disregard. It observed that repeated absence, failure to furnish information, failure to submit a written explanation and continued disregard of its directions amounted to gross negligence in the discharge of statutory duties. It added that the appellant had been subjected to unnecessary harassment.
The commission also forwarded a copy of its order to the director, rural development and panchayats, directing him to personally examine the matter, identify officials responsible for the repeated non-compliance, and ensure that appropriate administrative action is initiated against them.
The commission also ordered Rs 5,000 in compensation for the applicant.
The directions were issued by state information commissioner Bhupinder Batth while hearing an appeal that had reached its ninth hearing.
Taking a serious view of the continued default, the commission observed the conduct of the respondent public authority was wholly unacceptable.
During the hearing, the appellant maintained that complete information had not been provided and sought action against the public information officer (PIO) for the delay. The respondent, however, stated that the DDPO office had sent the information to the appellant and handed over a copy during the proceedings. The respondent also submitted replies concerning points 13 and 16 of the RTI application.
The appellant objected to the reply concerning point 16, which stated that records relating to court cases involving Chapparchirhi Khurd village had been transferred to the municipal corporation, Mohali, under Punjab govt orders dated Nov 28, 2025. He pointed out that his RTI application had been filed in 2020 and argued that the explanation provided at this stage was unacceptable.
After examining the record, the commission observed that the matter had reached its ninth hearing and that the concerned PIO had repeatedly failed to comply with the proceedings. It noted that a show-cause notice had been issued, requiring the officer to explain why action under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated. Bailable warrants had also been issued to secure his presence, but he had neither appeared nor furnished an explanation.
The commission described the conduct as a deliberate and persistent disregard. It observed that repeated absence, failure to furnish information, failure to submit a written explanation and continued disregard of its directions amounted to gross negligence in the discharge of statutory duties. It added that the appellant had been subjected to unnecessary harassment.
The commission also forwarded a copy of its order to the director, rural development and panchayats, directing him to personally examine the matter, identify officials responsible for the repeated non-compliance, and ensure that appropriate administrative action is initiated against them.
.JPG)
.JPG)
