1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P15 order passed by the State Information Commission, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission' for short) whereby the 4th respondent was exonerated from penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) overlooking the finding of facts entered earlier by the Commission in Ext.P10 order.

2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation on 08.05.2022 through Citizen Service Portal (Integrated Local Governance Management System-ILGMS) before the Paravoor Municipality seeking reduction of his property tax. Since he did not receive any reply, he submitted Ext.P2 application under the RTI Act seeking information regarding the steps taken pursuant to Ext.P1 before the 4th respondent who was then holding the charge of the State Public Information Officer (SPIO).

3. Since the 4th respondent failed to respond to Ext.P2 within the time stipulated under the RTI Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 First Appeal before the 2nd respondent. In response to Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 stating that a reply to Ext.P2 application was already issued on 17.08.2022. A copy of the reply was also enclosed along with Ext.P4 which is marked in the writ petition as Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, it is stated that Ext.P1 representation of the petitioner could be processed only on 05.08.2022 due to technical snag in the citizen portal and steps are taken to redress the grievance raised in Ext.P1. The petitioner states that he received the copy of Ext.P5 only along with Ext.P4 reply.

4. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Commission by filing Ext.P6 Second Appeal. In Ext.P6, it was contended inter alia that there was delay in responding to Ext.P2 application under the RTI Act and Ext.P5 information was furnished only along with Ext.P4 reply of the Appellate Authority and the information furnished is incorrect. The Appellate Authority and the SPIO filed Exts. P7 and P8 explanations. It is stated therein that applications received through the ILGMS portal were being downloaded by the Information Kerala Mission (IKM) technical staff and that the staff of the Municipality had not, at the relevant time, been trained to download such applications. Therefore, the petitioner's application could be downloaded only on 05.08.2022, with the assistance of IKM trained staff from another Municipality, following which the complaint was redressed and the petitioner was duly informed thereof. It is further stated that there was no willful delay on their part in furnishing the information.

5. The Commission, by Ext.P10 order, observed that there was failure on the part of the SPIO and the Appellate Authority in furnishing information on Ext.P2 application within the specified time and decided to issue notice to the SPIO and the Appellate Authority calling for explanation as to why penalty shall not be imposed on them under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

6. Pursuant to Ext.P10, the SPIO and the Appellate Authority submitted their explanations as Exts.P11 and P12, respectively reiterating their contentions in Exts.P7 and P8.

7. The Commission, vide Ext.P13 order, found that the explanation offered by the SPIO is not satisfactory and imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on her, whereas the explanation submitted by the Appellate Authority was accepted.

8. The 4th respondent, SPIO challenged Exts.P10 and P13 orders passed by the Commission before this Court in W.P (C) No.26331 of 2023 contending inter alia that Ext.P13 order was passed without notice to her. This Court, by Ext.P14 judgment, set aside Ext.P13 order and directed the Commission to hear the 4th respondent and the petitioner herein and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. This Court made it clear that Ext.P10 order has not been interfered with and the enquiry is limited to the imposition of penalty on the 4th respondent.

9. Pursuant thereto, the Commission heard the petitioner and the 4th respondent, SPIO. The Commission accepted the explanation of the 4th respondent and passed Ext.P15 order exonerating her of the penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Ext.P15 is impugned in this writ petition contending inter alia that while passing Ext.P15, the Commission failed to take note of its own earlier findings regarding the lapse on the part of the 4th respondent in furnishing the information. It is further contended that in Ext.P14 judgment, this Court did not interfere with Ext.P10 order and therefore, the Commission is precluded from accepting the same explanation to exonerate the 4th respondent from the liability. The petitioner has therefore sought for a direction quashing Ext.P15 and to declare that the Commission cannot reconsider or take a different view regarding question of facts already answered in Ext. P10 order while exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the RTI Act and for direction to the Commission to consider the issue of imposition of penalty or other directions in terms of Section 20 of the RTI Act.

10. Heard Sri. Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri.M. Rajendran Nair, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Though service of notice is complete on the 4th respondent, there is no appearance for her.

11. Section 19 of the RTI Act deals with ‘appeal’ and Section 19 (8)(c) provides that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to impose any of the penalties provided under the Act. Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act deals with ‘penalties’ and reads thus:

                  “20. Penalties.-- (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or mala fidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

                  Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

                  Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”

                  While considering Ext.P6 Second Appeal, the Commission in Ext.P10 order observed that there was failure on the part of the 4th respondent SPIO and the Appellate Authority in furnishing information on Ext.P2 application within the specified time. Accordingly, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty against the 4th respondent and the Appellate Authority and asked them to show cause as to why penalty shall not be imposed on them. The Commission, vide Ext.P13 order, found the explanation offered by the SPIO as not satisfactory and imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on her, whereas the explanation submitted by the Appellate Authority was accepted. The 4th respondent, SPIO challenged Exts.P10 and P13 orders before this Court contending, inter alia, that Ext.P13 order was passed without notice to her. This Court, by Ext.P14 judgment, set aside Ext.P13 order and directed the Commission to hear the 4th respondent and the petitioner herein and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. However, Ext.P10 order was not interfered with and the enquiry was limited to the imposition of penalty on the 4th respondent.

12. Pursuant thereto, the Commission heard the petitioner and the 4th respondent, SPIO. The Commission accepted the explanation of the 4th respondent and exonerated her of the penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission, after considering explanation of the 4th respondent, the statement recorded during hearing and other records, found that though there was delay in furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner, the 4th respondent had furnished the information as soon as the application was received by her. The Commission observed that the delay occurred in downloading the application and transmitting it to the concerned section. Accordingly, the 4th respondent was exonerated from the penalty proceedings.

13. The opinion formed by the Commission at the stage of deciding the appeal and before issuing a show cause notice under the first proviso to Section 20(1) is only prima facie in nature. The findings in Ext.P10 are only tentative in nature. The first proviso to Section 20(1) provides for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the SPIO before imposing any penalty thereunder. The burden of proving that she acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the SPIO. If the Commission finds that the SPIO has discharged the said burden and that her explanation to the notice against the proposed penalty is satisfactory, the Commission can drop the penalty proceedings. The Commission, after considering the explanation of the 4th respondent and after hearing her, found no reason to impose penalty as proposed in Ext.P10 and consequently, dropped further proceedings against the 4th respondent. The decision of the Commission cannot be said to be irrational or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.