Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO: Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application. Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application. Malafidely denied the RTI request. Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Destroyed the requested information. Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner.Amount of penalty:The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000. Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken. The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.Q. Mr. Sharma submitted a request under the RTI Act to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, inquiring about the instances of industrial units violating environmental regulations and the subsequent measures taken against them. Nevertheless, the Ministrys Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) declined to provide the information, citing concerns about potential confidentiality breaches related to these industrial units. In response to this denial, Mr. Sharma filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC), asserting that the CPIO had acted with malintent in denying him access to the requested information.a)The CIC imposed a personal penalty of INR 25,000 on the CPIO for malafidely denying the information to Mr. Sharma.b)The CIC issued a showcause notice to the CPIO, asking him to explain the grounds on which he denied the information. After considering the CPIOs response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that the CPIO had no reasonable cause to deny the information and imposed a personal penalty of INR 5,000.c)The CIC rejected Mr. Sharmas complaint, stating that the CPIO had a valid reason to deny the information as it could lead to a breach of confidentiality of the industrial units.d)The CIC issued a showcause notice to Mr. Sharma, asking him to explain why he required the information and how it would be used. After considering Mr. Sharmas response and the relevant material, the CIC formed an opinion that Mr. Sharma had no reasonable cause to seek the information and dismissed his complaint.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.