JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’] in Appeal No. 2028/2010 whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’] was imposed upon the petitioner No.2 to be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments, who at that time was holding the post of the Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy General Manager, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi.

2. The relevant facts emanating from the writ petition is that the respondent No.1 made an application under Section 6 of the Act, 2005 in the office of the Deputy General Manager-cum-Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi i.e. the Office of the Public Information Officer on 29.08.2009 seeking ten points information as mentioned therein. When the said information was not supplied to him within the stipulated period of 30 days, he filed first appeal on 08.10.2009 before the petitioner No.1 seeking desired information free of cost. According to the respondent No.1, certain informations were belatedly provided to him on 24.12.2009 that too those were misleading. Aggrieved therewith, he preferred second appeal before the Commission, which was registered as Appeal Case No. 2028/10 and was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 upon the petitioner No.2 to be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, the information was provided to the respondent No.1 on 13.11.2009 as would be evident from the communication made by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi to the respondent No.1 vide letter No. 3410 dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Moreover, the said information was in due response to the queries made by the respondent No.1 and was proper having no ambiguity in the same. Hence, the objection raised by the respondent No.1 before the Commission contending that misleading informations were provided to him, was baseless. Otherwise also, the learned Commission while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.2011, primarily considered the issue of not providing information by the petitioner No.2 on the objection raised by the respondent No.1 before it which does not come within the ambit of the conditions mentioned in Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 so as to impose penalty upon the concerned Public Information Officer and thus the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 is bad in law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Commission in Appeal Case No. 2028/10 is perfectly justified as the concerned Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioner No.2 failed to provide desired information to the respondent No.1 within the statutory period, rather the information provided to him belatedly was also misleading.

5. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 has been passed by the Commission in accordance with law and the same does not require any interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that admittedly the concerned Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioner No.2 provided information to the respondent No.1 belatedly and hence he failed to comply the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005 and therefore he was liable for penalty under Section 20(1) of the said Act.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The respondent No.1 filed an application on 29.08.2009 before the Deputy General Manager-cum-Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi, who