Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 i.e. the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission. None appears for the respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions.

2. By filing these writ petitions the petitioner, who is the Public Information Officer (PIO), has challenged the two orders, both dated 23.02.2012, issued by the State Information Commissioner (SIC) of the Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission (APSIC) imposing penalty upon the writ petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005-). Both these Writ Petitions arise out of two identical proceedings initiated before the APSIC, whereby, the writ petitioner has been held to be responsible for the delay in furnishing the information sought by the applicant/respondent No. 2 therein. Since both these writ petitions are based on identical facts raising common questions of law, hence, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the contentious issues involved in these proceedi