Bombay High Court
DR. DEEPA BAPUSAHEB BHOSALEversusTHE CHIEF STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- AMIT BORKAR
Holding
The Commissioner’s order is invalid because it lacks the requisite finding of intentional or mala‑fide misconduct, and therefore the direction to initiate departmental proceedings must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepa Bhosale, challenged an order of the State Information Commissioner issued under Sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which directed the initiation of departmental proceedings against a Public Information Officer for a delay in furnishing information. The High Court examined whether the Commissioner had complied with the statutory requirement to record specific findings of intentional or mala‑fide misconduct before imposing such a serious sanction. It observed that the impugned order merely noted the delay without analysing its cause or attributing any deliberate wrongdoing to the officer. The Court held that a mere delay, absent a clear finding of intentional non‑compliance, cannot justify departmental proceedings. Consequently, the order directing departmental action was set aside and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Information Commissioner’s order initiating departmental proceedings, based solely on a delay in furnishing information, complies with the requirements of Sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the RTI Act.
- Whether the Commissioner is required to record a finding of mala‑fide intent or misconduct before imposing departmental proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Right to Information Act, 2005 — s. 19(2), 19(3)
Subjects
- Right to Information
- Section 19
- appellate jurisdiction
- departmental proceedings
- procedural fairness
- public information officer
- delay
- mala fide
- writ petition
Judgment
4-wp-7990-2013 modified.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7990 OF 2013
Deepa Bapusaheb Bhosale … Petitioner
V/s.
The Chief State Information
Commissioner & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Anand S. Patil, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP, for the State – Respondent
Nos.3 and 4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 4, 2026
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order passed
by the State Information Commissioner while exercising powers
under Sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the Right to Information Act,
2005. These provisions confer appellate jurisdiction upon the
Commissioner to examine whether the information sought under
the Act has been properly dealt with by the concerned public
authority. When such power is exercised, the authority is expected
to examine the facts carefully and record reasons which show why
a particular direction is necessary. Therefore, while considering the
present challenge, it becomes necessary to look closely at the
reasoning recorded in the impugned order and to see whether the
exercise of power is supported by proper findings.
1
4-wp-7990-2013 modified.doc
3. A careful reading of the impugned order shows that the only
reason mentioned by the State Information Commissioner is that
there was delay in furnishing the information sought by the
applicant. Apart from this observation, the order does not discuss
the surrounding circumstances or the conduct of the concerned
Information Officer. It does not explain whether the delay occurred
due to any deliberate act, negligence, or any other improper
reason. The order merely records the fact of delay and proceeds
further. In matters where statutory power is exercised against a
public officer, the authority is expected to consider whether the
delay is intentional or whether it arose from administrative or
procedural reasons. Without such examination, the order remains
incomplete in its reasoning.
4. The RTI Act gives certain powers to the State Information
Commissioner under Section 19. These powers enable the
authority to pass appropriate orders while deciding an appeal
relating to supply of information. The Act also provides for
imposition of penalty in certain situations. Such penalty may
include a monetary fine where the conduct of the Public
Information Officer shows clear failure to comply with the
obligations imposed by the Act. At the same time, the scheme of
the Act indicates that serious consequences such as directing
initiation of departmental proceedings cannot be ordered in a
routine manner. Before issuing such a direction, the authority must
record a clear finding that the conduct of the officer indicates mala
fide exercise of power or behaviour which goes beyond a simple
mistake made while performing official duties. In other words,
2
4-wp-7990-2013 modified.doc
there must be some material showing intentional wrongdoing or
improper conduct. A mere delay, by itself, does not automatically
establish such intention.
5. In the present matter, the impugned order does not record
any finding suggesting mala fide intention, misconduct, or abuse
of power on the part of the concerned officer. The order only notes
that the information was furnished belatedly. It does not state that
the delay was deliberate or that the officer attempted to withhold
the information intentionally. When such essential findings are
absent, the direction issued by the Commissioner to initiate
departmental proceedings cannot stand on a proper legal
foundation. Departmental proceedings affect the service career of
a public officer, and therefore they must be based on clear and
specific reasons. Since the impugned order does not contain such
reasoning and rests solely on the ground of delay, the direction for
initiating departmental proceedings cannot be sustained in law.
6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
Note:- This order is modified as per the order dated 24 June 2026.
3
Checking your session…