JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.03.2017 as contained in memo No. 6417 dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No. 422/15 to the extent ‘the then Public Information Officer, Confidential Section, Gumla Collectorate’ i.e. the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’]. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter as contained in memo No. 76(i) dated 29.04.2017 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 communicating the order dated 15.03.2017 to the respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the period from 20.09.2013 to 19.05.2015 while the petitioner was posted as the District Land Acquisition Officer, Gumla, he was also directed by the respondent No.2 to discharge the duty of the Public Information Officer, District Confidential Section, Gumla. An application was made by the respondent No.6 on 05.07.2014 before the Public Information Officer of District Confidential Section, Gumla i.e. the petitioner seeking certain information under the provisions of the Act, 2005.

3. After receiving the application of the respondent No.6, the petitioner promptly requested the District Education Officer, Gumla vide letter dated 08.07.2014 to provide the required information after making enquiry. However, the said authority did not provide the same. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Director, Accounts, Administration and Self-Employment, District Rural Development Agency, Gumla vide letters dated 05.08.2014 & 26.08.2014 to provide the required information after making enquiry. However, the same was not provided by the said authority in time and hence the petitioner could not provide the required information to the respondent No.6 within the stipulated period of 30 days which was provided to him vide letter dated 14.10.2014 after receiving the same vide letter dated 09.09.2014.

4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commission suffers from infirmity as before imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the then Public Information Officer of the District Confidential Section, Gumla i.e. the petitioner exercising power under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, he was not provided any opportunity of hearing and on that ground alone, the said order is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSIC as well as Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, jointly submit that since the petitioner was the concerned Public Information Officer, he was supposed to provide the required information to the respondent No.6 within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005, however, he provided the information belatedly. The Commission has thus rightly passed the impugned order dated 15.03.2017.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commission primarily on the ground that before imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 upon the petitioner, no prior notice was issued to him and he was not provided any opportunity of hearing, the same is liable to be set aside.

7. For better appreciation of the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to quote Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 which reads as under:

“20. Penalties. – (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reaso