Chandigarh: The Punjab State Information Commission has directed the Director of Rural Development and Panchayats to identify officials responsible for prolonged delays and repeated non-compliance in a Right to Information (RTI) case and initiate appropriate administrative action against them.
The Commission also ordered compensation of ₹5,000 for the applicant, who had approached the panel seeking complete information under the RTI Act, 2005.
State Information Commissioner Bhupinder Singh Batth issued the directions while hearing an appeal that had reached its ninth hearing. The Commission expressed concern over the failure to provide complete information and repeated disregard of its proceedings.
Commission Flags Repeated Non-Compliance in RTI Appeal
During the hearing, the applicant maintained that the information sought under the RTI application had not been provided completely. The applicant also sought action against the Public Information Officer (PIO) over the delay.
Read Also: Punjab Targets Defence and Aerospace as Investment Proposals Reach ₹1.92 Lakh Crore
The respondent’s side submitted that the office of the District Development and Panchayats Officer (DDPO) had sent information to the applicant. A copy was also handed over during the proceedings, along with replies concerning points 13 and 16 of the application.
However, the applicant objected to the response concerning point 16, which stated that records relating to court cases involving Chapparchirhi Khurd village had been transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Mohali, under a Punjab government order dated November 28, 2025.
The applicant argued that the RTI application had been filed in 2020 and questioned the explanation being provided several years later.
After examining the proceedings, the Commission noted that the matter had reached its ninth hearing and that the concerned PIO had repeatedly failed to comply with its directions.
Show-Cause Notice and Bailable Warrants Had Been Issued
The Commission observed that a show-cause notice had previously been issued to the concerned PIO, asking the officer to explain why action under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated.
Bailable warrants had also been issued to secure the officer’s presence before the Commission. However, according to the proceedings, the officer neither appeared nor submitted an explanation.
The Commission described the repeated defaults as a persistent disregard of its directions.
It observed that the continued failure to provide information, attend hearings and submit a written explanation amounted to gross negligence in the discharge of statutory duties. The Commission also noted that the applicant had faced unnecessary harassment because of the prolonged proceedings.
Director Asked to Identify Officials and Initiate Action
The Commission forwarded a copy of its order to the Director of Rural Development and Panchayats, directing the senior official to examine the matter personally.
The Director has been asked to identify those responsible for the repeated non-compliance and ensure that appropriate administrative action is initiated against them.
The direction places responsibility on the department to examine how the case was handled and determine accountability for the prolonged delay.
The order, as described in the available reporting, directs the department to identify the officials concerned and initiate appropriate action; it does not establish that a particular official has already been punished.
₹5,000 Compensation Ordered Under RTI Proceedings
Apart from directing departmental action, the Commission ordered ₹5,000 in compensation for the applicant.
The compensation provides relief to the applicant in connection with the prolonged delay and the difficulties experienced while pursuing the information request.
Under the Right to Information Act, the information commissions have powers to direct public authorities to provide compensation where the statutory conditions are met. Section 19(8)(b) specifically empowers a commission to require a public authority to compensate a complainant for loss or other detriment suffered.
Section 20 separately provides for penalties against a Central or State Public Information Officer in specified circumstances, subject to the procedure and requirements laid down in the Act.
Case Highlights the Importance of Timely RTI Responses
The case concerns an information request filed in 2020 and the subsequent proceedings before the Punjab State Information Commission.
The Commission’s directions call for departmental scrutiny of the repeated non-compliance, identification of the officials responsible and appropriate administrative action, alongside compensation for the applicant.
The matter underscores the statutory responsibilities of public authorities and information officers in handling RTI applications and complying with directions issued by the information commission.
Read Also: Punjab Launches Hunar and Fast-Track Portals to Boost Jobs and Speed Up Investor Approvals
