Allowed¶21

The Central Public Information Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nagpur v. Central Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Another

Bombay HC17 Nov 2025WP/2743/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005 Section 20(1) penalty; show cause notice; reasonable opportunity of being heard before penalty; Central Public Information Officer; Central Information Commission; fine Rs.25,000; information not supplied within prescribed period; CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/114701; writ petition allowed; CIC order quashed and set aside; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; WRIT PETITION NO.2743 OF 2018; Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.; 17-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Central Information Commission in CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/114701 imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. ¶21

The Central Public Information Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nagpur Vs Central Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

11 WP-2743-2018

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:12310

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2743 OF 2018

¶6

[The Central Public Informatin Officer ..Vs.. Central Information Commissioner and Another]

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

¶8

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Ms S. S. Gadhawe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17th N OVEMBER, 2025.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

None appears for the respondents though served.

¶13

The present petitioner challenges the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Central Information Commissioner in CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/114701, whereby a fine of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the ground that the required information was not supplied within a prescribed period of limitation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, before imposing a penalty, the Central Information Commission ought to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, asking why such penalty should not be imposed. On this count alone, she submits that the order passed by the Central Information Commission is liable to be set aside.

¶15

I have gone through the contents of the petition and more particularly, Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under :

¶16

11 WP-2743-2018

¶17

¶18

“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 malafidely 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 twentyfive thousand rupees;

¶19

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:

¶20

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

¶21

Upon perusal, it appears that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. In view thereof, present petition is allowed. The order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Central Information Commission in CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/114701 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶22

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶23

TAMBE

The Central Public Information Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nagpur v. Central Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Central Public Information Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nagpur v. Central Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agriculture Market Produce Committee, through Its Chairman, Gondia Vs Shri Jagannath S/O Baburao Munishwar

Ishwar Krushnaji Ragit vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Deptt., Mumba and Others

Ishwar Krushnaji Ragit vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Pandit Totaram Vispute and Others vs the General Manager Maharashtra Gramin Bank

Ashish Ramdas Bari vs Shram Sadhana Bombay Trust Ssbt College of Engineering and Technology and Ors.

Rambhau S/O Anandrao Chavhan vs Shri Vinod Marotrao Chavre, Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur