The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to provide information to the Information Seeker, the liability of the custodian of the document, and the limitations of the writ of Certiorari in interfering with findings of fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the Information Commissioner, has been assailed, by 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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005).

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was the Secretary of Chandan Kiyari, Fisherman, Cooperative Society Ltd. registered under the Jharkhand Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. The petitioner received letter bearing no.422 dated 23.08.2010 issued by the District Co-operative Officer cum-Public Information Officer. By the said letter the petitioner was informed that the respondent no.3 has sought information on 12 points and since the information sought for was related to the society of which the petitioner is the Secretary and hence direction was issued to him to furnish the information sought for.

4. Vide order dated 23.08.10 passed by Learned Information Commissioner, the petitioner was declared as the deemed Public Information Officer without issuing any notice to him as to why he be not declared so and was further directed to furnish the information sought for by the respondent no.3.That in view of the directions of the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro and the order of the Learned Information Commissioner dated 23.08.10 the petitioner furnished the information sought for by the respondent no.3.

5. The petitioner appeared before the Information Commissioner and informed the Commissioner that the information sought for had been furnished to the respondent no.3 and further the petitioner produced postal receipt to show that the information had been sent at the addressed of the respondent no.3 by the registered post but the respondent no.3 did not appear and hence the appeal could not be disposed of on that date.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was under bonafide impression that he had already informed the Commissioner of the fact that the information had already been furnished to the respondent no.3 and the same had been sent at the postal address of respondent no.3, as such, nothing more was required to be done.

7. The petitioner did not appear before the Information Commissioner on subsequent dates.

8. All of a sudden the petitioner was informed by the District Cooperative Officer, Bokaro vide letter no.231 dated 01.06.2011, informing him that appeal case no.2528 of 2010 had been disposed of by the Information Commissioner and penalty of Rs.25,000/-has been imposed on him. By the said letter the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-in the Government Treasury and produce a copy of a the Challan before the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro.

9. It is the case of the writ petitioner that when the petitioner appeared before the Information Commissioner and stated the fact that the information sought for had already been furnished, but no notice from the Information Commissioner informing him of the next date of hearing nor he was informed that the respondent no.3 filed objection to the information furnished by him.

12. On 12.05.2011, the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro was present before the Commission. It is submitted that the Learned Commission had the option of directing the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro to ensure the presence of the petitioner before the Commissioner on the next date of hearing.

13. The Information Commissioner, without exhausting the remedies available to it to ensure the presence of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/-on the petitioner, hence, this writ petition.

14. It is the evident from the material available on record that the writ petitioner, while working as Secretary of Chandankiyari Matasya Jeevi Sahyog Samit