ORDER :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since the identical issues are involved in aforementioned writ petitions, these are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 14.07.2011, passed in Appeal Case No. 2716 of 2010 (in W.P.C. No. 6095 of 2011); order dated 08.07.2011, passed in Appeal Case No. 2062 of 2011 (in W.P.C. No. 6110 of 2011); order dated 08.07.2011, passed in Appeal Case No. 2685 of 2011 (in W.P.C. No. 6108 of 2011); passed by learned Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- each of the aforesaid three cases has been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty for not providing the required information to respondent No. 3 of the aforesaid cases.

4. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was posted as General Manager in High Tension Insulator Factory, Namkum, Ranchi a unit of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (for short 'BSIDC'). While petitioner was discharging his duties, the concerned respondent No. 3 submitted applications under Right to Information Act asking certain information from Information Officer and General Manager, Electric Equipment Factory, Tatisilwai, Ranchi. Upon receipt of such applications, the petitioner being the General Manager-cum-Public Information Officer, forwarded the same to the Head Accountant for providing the required information. Thereafter, the concerned Head Accountant sent letter to the respondent No. 3 stating therein that the information sought by the respondent No. 3 could not be furnished on time due to shortage of manpower. However, respondent No. 3 refused to receive the said letter and filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority namely, Managing Director of the BSIDC and then filed second appeal before the State Information Commission. Then the State Information Commission summoned the PIO to appear before it on the next date of hearing. Upon being summoned, the petitioner appeared before the State Information Commission and submitted that he had already provided the information which he had in his possession. However, the respondent No. 3 written protest letter to the learned State Information Commissioning mentioning therein that the information provided by the petitioner is incomplete and vague. The authorized representative of the petitioner was present on 20.05.2011 and sought time for filing reply to the protest letter of respondent No. 3, on which the matter was adjourned to 20.06.2011, but nobody could appear on the said date and as such, the petitioner was again adjourned to 14.07.2011. On 14.07.2011, the petitioner was in Patna for some official work and hence, could not appear before the State Information Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that due to lack of manpower/ managerial staff, he was given the additional charge of all the four Units of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation. However, the learned Information Commissioner, without considering the aforesaid fact and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by impugned orders, imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- in each of the aforesaid three cases.

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 the Public Information Officer can be held liable only for not providing those information which are in his possession but in the instant cases, the petitioner has already provided the information which he had in his possession and as such, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Information Commissioner also failed to consider the fact that the Public Informati