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