Penalty for delay on RTI pleas decided on case-to-case basis,

Central Information Commission seems to be letting off, without penalty, officers who failed to stick to the 30-day deadline for replying to RTI pleas despite high courts having held that going for punitive action under RTI Act was not optional in such cases.
In a case related to the delay by a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in the UIDAI in giving information to RTI applicant Alexander K Alexander, Information Commissioner Sharat Sabharwal did not impose any penalty despite noting that the said official had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The CPIO was instead let off by with just "serious note" having been taken of the delay.

But when contacted over the matter, Chief Information Commissioner Sushma Singh refused to make any remarks although she said that the imposition of penalty was determined on a case-to-case basis.
However, former CIC Wajahat Habibullah told PTI that, "Once the CIC is convinced that there is no reasonable grounds for delay in furnishing information, it is mandatory for the commission to impose a penalty on the CPIO. The law says commission 'shall' impose penalty and this has been held in a number of high court orders."
In his order in the case, Sabharwal had said, "The CPIO contended that the RTI application was received by them through the Planning Commission on February 11, 2013. Beyond this, he was unable to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Commission takes serious note of the delay in responding to the RTI application."

In a similar case, CIC had not imposed a penalty but only recommended disciplinary inquiry against the CPIO despite concluding that there had been a delay in the response to an RTI application without any reasonable cause.

In the Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission case, Justice Ravindra Bhat of Delhi High Court had clearly stated that, "Even though the CIC recommended disciplinary action under Section 20(2), its denial of any penalty order under Section 20, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be upheld."
The court declared the CIC order not imposing penalty to be "illegal".
Similarly, in the Sanjay Hindwan vs State Information Commission case in Himachal Pradesh, a division bench of high court held that, "Once the commission comes to the conclusion that the penalty has to be imposed, then the same must be at the rate of Rs 250 per day and not at any other rate (set) at the whims and fancy of the commission.