Precedent on Mandatory Notice to Both Actual and Deemed Public Information Officers Under RTI Act Section 20

Introduction

Ganesh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. arose under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a penalty order levied by the Jharkhand State Information Commission under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The petitioner, Ganesh Kumar—then Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur—was held personally liable for delay in furnishing information, though the designated Public Information Officer (PIO) was the Circle Officer. The key issue was whether the Information Commission could impose penalty on a “deemed PIO” without issuing notice to the actual PIO who missed the statutory timeline. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad of the Jharkhand High Court quashed the penalty order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

Summary of the Judgment

• The respondent (information seeker) filed an RTI application on 10.11.2010, but submitted it to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (petitioner) instead of the duly notified PIO (Circle Officer).
• The petitioner forwarded the application to the Circle Officer under Section 6(3) and the latter supplied information belatedly.
• The information seeker exhausted his remedies and approached the State Information Commission in a second appeal.
• The Commission found “unsatisfactory explanations” and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20(1), directing recovery in installments.
• The petitioner’s review was dismissed. He then moved the High Court by writ of certiorari, arguing that the penalty order was invalid because no notice was served on the actual PIO (Circle Officer).
• The High Court held that, under Section 20(1), every officer whose lapse is alleged must be given a reasonable opportunity. Since no notice was issued to the Circle Officer, the penalty order was procedurally flawed. The Court quashed the order and remitted the case for fresh consideration.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477
- Established that writ of certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction or legal impropriety, not errors of fact.
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233
- Clarified certiorari jurisdiction: limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, illegalities, or procedural improprieties.
Sawarn Singh v. State Of Punjab, (1976) 2 SCC 868
- Reiterated that courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot reappraise evidence; they may interfere when findings rest on no admissible evidence or the tribunal denied a hearing.

Legal Reasoning

The Court examined Sections 5, 6, 7, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act:

Section 5 requires every public authority to notify PIOs and Assistant PIOs within 100 days of the Act’s commencement.
Section 6(3) empowers any official receiving an RTI application to forward it to the designated PIO.
Section 7(1) mandates disposal of requests within 30 days, subject to limited extensions.
Section 19 provides first and second appeal mechanisms when information is delayed or denied.
Section 20(1) authorizes the Information Commission to impose up to ₹25,000 penalty on a PIO who “without reasonable cause fails to provide information within the time specified.” It enjoins fair notice and opportunity to be heard.

The High Court held:

The RTI Act contemplates both “actual” and “deemed” PIOs. Any official receiving an application assumes the role of deemed PIO until it is forwarded.
Before levying penalty under Section 20(1), the Commission must identify and serve notice on all officers potentially at fault—here, both the Additional Deputy Commissioner (deemed PIO) and the Circle Officer (actual PIO).
By serving notice only on the petitioner and not the actual PIO (Circle Officer), the Commission committed a procedural impropriety, infringing the principles of natural justice.
Such error is correctable by certiorari because it is a defect in jurisdictional or procedural fairness, not merely a disagreement over facts.

Impact

The Judgment establishes a binding precedent within Jharkhand—and persuasive authority elsewhere—that:

Information Commissions must issue reasoned show‐cause notices to all officers whose conduct is in question before imposing penalties.
Procedural fairness under Section 20(1) is integral; skipping notice to an actual PIO vitiates the penalty order.
Courts will not hesitate to quash penalty orders for such procedural lapses, reinforcing RTI Act’s ethos of transparency and accountability.

Future RTI appeals and second appeals nationwide must reflect this dual‐notice requirement, thereby safeguarding officers’ right to be heard and upholding statutory mandates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Public Information Officer (PIO): An official formally designated to receive and respond to RTI requests.
Deemed PIO: Any public servant who, though not formally notified, receives an RTI application and forwards it to the actual PIO.
Section 20(1) penalty: Monetary fine (up to ₹25,000) on a PIO who, without reasonable cause, delays or denies information. Requires issuing a “show‐cause notice” explaining delay.
Writ of Certiorari: A supervisory remedy under Article 226 to quash orders passed in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice, but not to re‐evaluate evidence.

Conclusion

Ganesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand crystallizes an essential procedural safeguard under the RTI Act: before imposing penalties under Section 20(1), the Information Commission must afford every potentially liable officer—be they actual or deemed PIO—a fair opportunity to explain. By quashing the penalty order for failure to serve notice on the designated PIO, the Jharkhand High Court reasserted the twin imperatives of statutory compliance and natural justice. This precedent will guide Information Commissions and courts nationwide, ensuring that penalties under the RTI Act are imposed only after due process, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability without compromising procedural fairness.