JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the order 12.09.2012 passed in Appeal Case no. 1802 of 2011 by the Chief Information Commissioner is under challenge, in which, the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed, in exercise of power conferred under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2005).

2. The brief facts of the case, which led the writ petitioner to file this writ petition, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads hereunder as:

The writ petitioner, who is a member of Jharkhand Administrative Service and while working as Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Hussainabad, Palamau, as also the Public Information Officer and the Nodal Officer under the provision of the Act, 2005, to supply information, which is permissible to be supplied under the provision of Act, 2005.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that while he was working as such, a notice has been received from the office of the State Information Commission dated 14.11.2011, as contained in Memo no. 12899. Vide aforesaid notice, the writ petitioner has been summoned to appear in the proceeding before the State Information Commission as on 01.02.2012 in order to put-forth his defence along with the relevant documents, failing which, the ex-parte order will be passed.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the information as was sought for, has been supplied to the information seeker vide Memo No. 291 dated 08.06.2012 and he had presented himself physically before the Commission on 12.06.2012, but, on that date there was no sitting of the Commission and, as such, the matter was adjourned for next date i.e. on 12.09.2012.

The further grievance of the writ petitioner is that even without providing any reasonable opportunity, the impugned decision of imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- as provided under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 has been inflicted, without complying the proviso contained therein, which provides that before imposing penalty a reasonable opportunity is mandatorily to be provided to the concerned Public information Officer.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the show cause notice which was issued on 03.04.2012 as has been referred in the impugned order dated 12.09.2012, which cannot be construed to be a show cause seeking explanation said to be in terms of proviso to Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005, since, it would be evident from the content of the show cause notice dated 03.04.2012 wherein it has been stipulated as to why the economic penalty be not imposed as provided under Section 20 (1) and the same also contains a direction for supply of the information as was sought for by the information seeker to be supplied within a period of a week from the notice dated 03.04.2012.

3. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the reasonable opportunity, in terms of the proviso to Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 is only construed to be a reasonable opportunity if a separate show cause would have been issued asking the writ petitioner as to why the economic penalty would not be imposed. Since, herein, the notice dated 03.04.2012 stipulates about the two directions, first, asking the explanation as to why the penalty be not imposed as provided under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 and secondly, to supply the information within one week from 03.04.2012. Therefore, the same is to be construed a direction for supply of document within one week and nothing else.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the backdrop of aforesaid contention has submitted that the impugned order requires interference by issuing writ of certiorari, since, the same is not in consonance with the provision of Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005.

4. Per contra, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission has defended the order impugned. It