By the Court.—Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.B. Singhal, Senior Advocate, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri R.R. Khan for respondent No. 1 and Sri S.K. Singh appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. The contesting parties are represented by their counsels. No notice has been issued to respondents No. 2 and 3, who are only proforma parties. Looking to the nature of issues raised in this writ petition, with the consent of parties, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16th December, 2009 by which penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner as deemed Public Information Officer/Principal under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that petitioner was working as Principal, Satish Chandra Degree College Ballia from March, 2009 to 8th May, 2009 and was also given charge of Co-ordinator of Indira Gandhi National Open University, Study Centre, Satish Chandra Degree College, Ballia. The respondent No. 4 who was working on the post of Lab Assistant in the same College and was also President of Shikshanettar Karmchari Parishad, Satish Chandra College, Ballia sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide his application dated 8th April, 2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The said application was forwarded by letter dated 14th April, 2009 of respondent No. 3 to the petitioner for providing information. The petitioner after receiving the said letter vide his letter dated 7th May, 2009 informed respondent No. 4 that information has been sought as President of Shikshanettar Karmchari Parishad, hence it is not covered by Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and he is not entitled for information. Petitioner’s case further is that Sri R.S. Pandey was made Co-ordinator from 8th May, 2009. A first appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 in which direction was issued on 21st May, 2009 directing the Public Information Officer to provide the information. It is not disputed that subsequent to the said order the information were provided by the subsequent Coordinator, Sri R.S. Pandey on 24th October, 2009. A second appeal was filed before the information was given, which came for consideration before the Central Information Commissioner. The Central Information Commissioner while proceeding issued notice under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to both, petitioner and Sri R.S. Pandey. The petitioner submitted his reply and the Central Information Commissioner by the impugned order has imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner against which the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order, contended that the petitioner, within the prescribed time, has already sent reply that information cannot be given since the application was made by the President of Shikshanettar Karmchari Parishad. He submits that there was no delay or mistake on the part of the petitioner. He submits that on 12th May, 2009 the respondent No. 4 clarified that he is seeking information as an individual and thereafter the proceedings were taken and direction was issued on 21st May, 2009 to provide the information. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner ceased to be Coordinator on 8th May, 2009 when charge was given to Sri R.S. Pandey. Thus for any subsequent delay the petitioner cannot be penalised. He further submits that Central Information Commissioner without giving any reason has passed the order under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

6. Sri R.B. Singhal appearing for respondent No. 1 has justified the order of the Central Information Commissioner. He submits that Central Information Commissioner has clearly found that no reasonable cause has been shown for not giving the information, hence the Central Informat