JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal No. 1669/2012, communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 5177 dated 22.07.2033, whereby the petitioner has been held guilty of not providing information and a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”) has been imposed upon him to be realized as the state revenue from his salary in five equal installments by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Treasury Officer, Ranchi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was made by the respondent no. 4 – Shivraj Singh under the Act, 2005 on 22.02.2012 seeking following information from the Public Information Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi:

A- What is the time limitation of delivery of the certified copy?

B- What steps have been taken on his application (mutation case)?

C- By what time the required certified copy would be delivered to him?

3. The respondent no. 4 claiming that the required information was not provided to him, preferred first appeal on 20.04.2012 before the Appellate Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi and thereafter second appeal before the respondent no. 3 on 20.06.2012 alleging inaction on the part of the Public Information Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi and the first appellate authority. The said second appeal was registered as Appeal No. 1669/2012. Pursuant to filing of the same, a notice was issued to the then Public Information Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi vide letter no. 10353 dated 22.12.2012 to appear before the Commission on 21.01.2013 at 11:30 a.m.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was transferred by the State Government to the post of Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi vide notification dated 27.02.2013, who thereafter assumed charge of the said post on 01.03.2013. Subsequently, he came to know about pendency of Appeal No. 1669/2012. Though the petitioner being the Public Information Officer of the said office pursuant to taking charge of the same on 01.03.2013 tried to provide information to the respondent no. 4 before the Commission, yet the Commission being dissatisfied with the information provided by the petitioner, imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon him vide impugned order dated 15.07.2013 exercising power under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 to be realized as the state revenue from the salary in five equal monthly installments by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Treasury Officer, Ranchi.

5. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not posted as Circle Officer, Ranchi on the day the application under the Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent no. 4 and, therefore, the imposition of said penalty by the Commission exercising power under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 is illegal and unjustified. In fact, it was the duty of the Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi-cum-Public Information Officer of the said office who was posted at the time the said application was made by the respondent no. 4 to provide the desired information. It is clearly provided in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005 that subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9 of the said Act, provided that where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the s