ORDER :

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 22.07.2011, passed in Appeal Case No. 2020 of 2010, passed by learned Information Commissioner, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty for not providing the required information to respondent No. 3 and further direction was given to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No. 3.

3. As per the facts of the case, a notice bearing No. 4425 dated 09.04.2011 issued by respondent No. 1 was received by the petitioner's office on 30.04.2011, by which the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda (petitioner herein) was directed to appear on 27.04.2011 before the respondent No. 1 in Appeal preferred by respondent No. 3, however, the petitioner could not appear before the respondent No. 1 as he had not received the said notice on time. Petitioner immediately after receiving the said notice, verified from his official records and found that the respondent No. 3, Karan Hansda never submitted any application seeking information under RTI Act, 2005. Further, the petitioner was surprised to know that even no appeal was preferred before the Additional Collector who is the first appellate authority. However, it was later on found that initially the Appeal No. 2020 of 2010 was preferred against the Assistant Public Information Officer, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Godda. Meanwhile, another notice dated 10.06.2011 was served upon the petitioner on 20.06.2011. Thereafter, on 25.06.2011 the petitioner sent letter to respondent No.l annexing the information sought by the respondent No. 3 which he had received from the District Mining Officer, Godda. The petitioner further stated that he was the Public Information Officer in Appeal No. 2020 of 2010. In the said letter, petitioner has also stated that the respondent No. 3 has filed two appeals before the respondent No. 1 for the same cause of action. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 that he was not the PIO in Appeal No. 2020 of 2010 and also the fact that the respondent No. 3 had also preferred another appeal i.e. Appeal No. 2523 of 2010, which is still pending.

4. However, the respondent No. 1 without appreciating the aforesaid facts, passed order dated 22.07.2011 and held the petitioner guilty of non-supply of the information to the respondent no. 3 and directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as pecuniary punishment and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent No. 3. The said order dated 22.07.2011 has been communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. 9453 dated 29.07.2011.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Information Commissioner has failed to consider the fact that respondent No. 3 had preferred application seeking information to APIO, O/o Deputy Commissioner, Godda. The matter relates to the mining lease to Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short 'ECL') which falls within the domain of either mining department or ECL, which is a Govt. of India Enterprises and ECL has its own separate designated CPIO, which is evident from the letter issued by the ECL. Learned counsel further argues that as per Section 5 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide his letter dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-6 to the writ application), submitted a list of Public Information Officers for different departments. Learned counsel further argues that RTI Act, 2005 provides a detailed procedure with respect to the appointment of Public Information Officer, request for obtaining information, filing of first appeal and the same is to be followed strictly and the impugned order passed in appeal under the RTI Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law and warrants interference by this Court. Learned c