The Bombay High Court has clarified that financial penalties under the Right to Information Act cannot be imposed on public authorities merely due to procedural delays, absent proof of fault or deliberate non-compliance. This ruling reinforces the statutory balance between transparency obligations and reasonable operational constraints faced by public bodies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Kishore Bhabutmal Shah, filed an RTI application on 19 February 2010 seeking information from the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The application was forwarded to the petitioner on 5 March 2010. On 26 April 2010, the petitioner issued a communication requiring the respondent to deposit prescribed fees before information could be furnished. The respondent did not pay the charges. Nearly 14 months later, he filed an appeal alleging non-supply of information.
Procedural History
- 19 February 2010: RTI application filed by respondent
- 5 March 2010: Application transmitted to petitioner (MSRTC)
- 26 April 2010: Petitioner issued notice demanding payment of charges
- 8 June 2011: Respondent filed First Appeal alleging non-response
- 2011: First Appellate Authority dismissed appeal
- 2012: Second Appellate Authority imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on petitioner for "delay"
- March 2026: Writ petition filed before Bombay High Court challenging cost order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Second Appellate Authority’s order imposing Rs. 10,000 as cost, arguing that it had acted in full compliance with the RTI Act and that the delay was attributable to the respondent’s failure to pay statutory fees.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be penalized with monetary cost for delay in supplying information when the delay stems solely from the applicant’s failure to pay statutorily mandated fees.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that it had discharged its duty under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act by promptly acknowledging the application and issuing a lawful demand for fees. It relied on Section 7(3)(a), which permits public authorities to require payment before providing information. The petitioner contended that the Second Appellate Authority erred in treating non-payment by the applicant as attributable fault on the part of the authority. It cited Central Information Commission v. State of Manipur to emphasize that costs must be imposed only for malafide or negligent conduct.
For the Respondent
The respondent, through the Second Appellate Authority, argued that the lapse of over a year between application and response constituted undue delay, regardless of the fee demand. The Authority presumed that the petitioner had not taken sufficient follow-up steps and that the mere passage of time triggered liability under Section 20(2), which allows imposition of costs for "unreasonable delay".
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a strict textual and purposive interpretation of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It emphasized that the Act’s framework is built on reciprocal obligations: while public authorities must act expeditiously, applicants must also comply with procedural requirements. The Court held that Section 7(3)(a) explicitly conditions the supply of information upon payment of fees. Therefore, the petitioner’s communication dated 26 April 2010 was not a delay but a lawful procedural step.
"When the statutory procedure itself requires payment of charges before supply of information, failure of the applicant to comply with that requirement cannot result in penal consequences against the public authority."
The Court rejected the Second Appellate Authority’s assumption that any lapse in time equated to fault. It noted that no evidence existed of the petitioner failing to follow up, ignoring the application, or acting in bad faith. The burden under Section 20(2) to prove "unreasonable delay" lies with the complainant, and the respondent had not discharged it. The Court further held that imposing costs without establishing fault undermines the Act’s intent to facilitate access, not penalize procedural adherence.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Bombay High Court held that monetary cost under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act cannot be imposed on a public authority where delay is caused by the applicant’s failure to pay statutorily mandated fees. The impugned order was set aside.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cost Imposition Requires Proven Fault
- Practitioners must now demonstrate actual negligence, malafide intent, or systemic failure by the public authority before seeking costs under Section 20(2)
- Mere passage of time, even exceeding 30 days, is insufficient grounds for cost imposition if the authority acted within statutory procedures
- RTI applicants must be advised to pay fees promptly; failure to do so shifts responsibility away from the public authority
Procedural Compliance Shields Public Authorities
- Public authorities should maintain documented proof of all communications, especially fee demands
- Issuing a lawful notice under Section 7(3)(a) constitutes due diligence and creates a legal shield against cost claims
- Internal tracking systems should flag pending fee payments as a distinct procedural stage, not a delay
Burden of Proof Rests on the Complainant
- The burden to prove "unreasonable delay" lies with the applicant, not the authority
- Courts will not infer fault from silence or inaction if the authority has taken a statutorily prescribed step
- RTI appeals must be structured around evidence of bad faith, not administrative timelines alone
