Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

2. In Writ Petition No.132 of 2011, the RBI has challenged the order dated 14.06.2010 of the Goa State Information Commission at Panaji under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") directing the disclosure of information considered by the Reserve Bank of India as confidential under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act, without hearing the Reserve Bank of India.

In Writ Petition No.307 of 2011, the Public Information Officer - Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has chal1enged the order dated 31.01.2011 imposing a penalty of Rs.2,000/- on him and directed to be recovered from his salary for non compliance of the order dated 14.06.2010.

3. Writ Petition No. 132 of 2011 is filed by the Reserve Bank of India. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by the Goa State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act is without any jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding under Section 18 of the Act. The State Information Commission which is a second appellate authority had no jurisdiction to receive and inquire into a complaint from the respondent no. 1 under Section 18 of the Act which he had involved instead of filing an appeal. According to the learned Counsel, the State Information Commission, in second appeal No. 78/2009 had passed an order dated 13.11.2009 remanding the matter to the Public Information Officer of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for deciding, whether respondent no. 1 is entitled to the information, which he has sought. After the remand, PIO had decided and held that respondent no. 1 is not entitled to the information which he had sought namely 16th and 17th reports of inspection of the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank carried out by the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, respondent no. 1 Mr. Rui Ferreira had no option but to file an appeal against that order before the First Appellate Authority i.e. the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the powers could not have been exercised by the Information Commission in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, which is meant to be exercised in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (f) of the Act only, which reads thus :-

"18. Powers and functions of Information Commission - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-

(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;

(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;

(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and

(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act."

4. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

The RBI had carried out an inspection in the affairs of the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., under Section 35 of the Banking Regulati