Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Binita Singh representing the State Information Commission (for brevity ‘the Commission’), Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned AC to AAG-6.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):—

“for quashing the order dated 28.09.2015 passed in case no. 76147/12-13 by State Information Commissioner, Bihar whereby and where under penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and further for quashing the all subsequent orders after first order dated 28.09.2015 passed in Case No. 76147/12-13 imposing penalty upon the petitioner and/or pass such other order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

3. On 04.04.2012, the respondent no. 4 sought information from the office of the petitioner who was then holding the post of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna. It is to be noted that he joined the post on 12.07.2012 and as per the information given by him to ‘the Commission’, the petitioner handed over the charge of the said post on 14.08.2015. The information sought for amongst the other were:—

“(i) how many mutation applications have has been received by the office of Circle Office, Phulwarisarif till 31.03.2012;

(ii) the period within which the applications were disposed of;

(iii) if there was delay in disposal, whether fine was imposed upon the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif or not.”

4. As per the document on record, the then Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna asked the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif vide letter dated 30.06.2012 (Annexure- 3 to the petition) to provide the information. It shows that the then Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna promptly took note of the information sought for by the respondent no. 4.

5. On 12.07.2012, the petitioner came into the shoes of the earlier officer and vide letter no. 1357 dated 06.09.2012, it was informed by him to the respondent no. 4 that he should seek the aforesaid information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif (Annexure-4 to the petition). This followed First Appeal and Second Appeal by the respondent no. 4 which came to be numbered as Case No. 76147/2012- 13. It is to be noticed that after the appeal filed, came the aforesaid order by which the respondent no. 4 was directed to seek the information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.

6. The case of the petitioner is that subsequently, the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif gave the information to the respondent no. 4 (annexure-12 to the petition). The submission is that these facts were duly provided/was in the domain of ‘the Commission’ and before the final hearing that took place on 28.09.2015, he was already transferred on 12.08.2015 whereafter the petitioner assumed the charge of the new post on 14.08.2015 in the Bihar State Housing Board. He as such, could not appear which followed the order.

7. An order came to be passed on 28.09.2015 by ‘the Commission’ when both the parties were absent. ‘The Commission’ after going through the records observed that the Public Information Officer was repeatedly given chance which was not availed by him. Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed upon him under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’). This was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 11920 dated 01.10.2015 (annexure-14 to the petition).

8. The petitioner thereafter wanted review of the order which was taken up by ‘the Commission’ on 27.11.2015 and it elaborated the earlier order dated 28.09.2015 by recording that on 10.09.2014, the petitioner was asked to answer why:—

(i) the information was not given;

(ii) the fine be not imposed under Section 20(1) of ‘the Act’.

9. ‘The Commission’ recorded that the petitioner failed to submit its show-cause beside not providing the information to the respondent no. 4 in time.