The Information Commissions are always required to be give reasoned decisions. If the Commission gives a decision without reasons, it is non-sustainable in the eyes of law. Now the question arises as to in which part of the decision, the Commission is required to give reasons. The reasons are always required, where there is descrition. If there is no descrition, then the need of reasons does not arise. The descrition in the decision is the opinion of the Commission as to whether the concerned
PIO has committed an offence. Therefore, most important point in the decision is the opinion of the Commission with regard to the delay etc. on the part of the
PIO. If Commission has a opinion that there was no reasonable cause for the delay etc., then it is bound to impose penalties. The commission can not give reasons for non-imposition of penalties as it is not descritionary on the part of the Commission to impose the penalty. The commission are only free to make its opinion. Therefore, I think there is no need to ask for the reasons for non-imposition of penalties. If the Commission is not imposition penalty even after forming an adverse opinion against the
PIO, then the Commission is failing in its duties and therefore, this is a fit case for approaching the High Court.