The retort must not be taken lightly, as they have a valid point that fines are necessary to ensure compliance with regulations. However, the point that fines should be taken seriously and supported by evidence and paperwork neglects to account for the unfortunate reality that many businesses don't have the resources or the means to dispute fines in the first place. When it is only the larger businesses that can afford to dispute, this puts smaller ones at a disadvantage.
Nikhil may have used a "sob story" to get his fine reduced, but it's important to remember that it wasn't a malicious act on his part. He didn't willfully break any regulations; rather, he was unaware of them until he was slapped with a hefty fine. This is not an uncommon occurrence, as even well-meaning entrepreneurs can be unaware of all the necessary regulations that come with running a business.
Furthermore, the language of the original essay encapsulates the feeling of "being fined" perfectly. It's been aptly described as a game of chicken, wherein agencies are banking on a fear-induced capitulation. The fear can be so overwhelming that disputing a fine seems impossible. In many cases, fines are reduced if people are willing to step forward and bravely dispute them.
As it turns out, fines can be less of an authoritative demand and more of an opportunity for entrepreneurs like Nikhil to learn about regulations and come into compliance with them. This understanding can help create an environment of trust between agencies and businesses, making it possible for entrepreneurs to use fines as an opportunity to become more informed and educated about regulations, rather than running away from them in fear. UrRong indeed: fines can be beneficial if handled properly.