Sudhashu Dhulia, J.

Heard Sri A. Rab, Avocate for the petitioner as well as Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 1 and 2. None appears for respondent no. 3.

The petitioner which is State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the State Information Commission by which the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been ordered to compensate respondent no.3 for not supplying the ‘Hindi’ translation of its order to respondent no. 3, and thereby causing obstruction in supplying information, under the Right to Information Act (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

The brief facts of the case are that an order passed by the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand was sought by an applicant (respondent no. 3), in a translated Hindi version in Devanagari script. The order in question was passed in English language. The applicant i.e. respondent no. 3 moved an application dated 9.7.2009 under Section 6 of the Act before the Public Information Officer of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand with a request to supply the copy of the order in Hindi as she was not well versed with English language. Since this was not done, she filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, as nominated under the Act, which was dismissed and the reasons given were that there was no provision under the law for supplying information to respondent no. 3 in Hindi nor are there any arrangements to translate orders in Hindi. Aggrieved by these orders, respondent no. 3 filed a statutory second appeal before the State Information Commission. The State Information Commissioner vide his letter dated 16.10.2009 first sought the opinion of the Law Secretary of the State as to what is the language of various courts (barring the High Court) in the State of Uttarakhand. The Law Department replied that the language of the State was Hindi and the language of the subordinate courts within the State of Uttarakhand was also Hindi. Consequently, the Information Commission after hearing the Consumer Commission came to the conclusion that the order was liable to be given to respondent no. 3 in Hindi and by not giving the order in Hindi, the rights of respondent no. 3 under the Act have been violated as the petitioner has caused obstructions in supplying the copy of the order in Hindi and therefore he has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,600/- to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act for causing obstruction in supplying the information to respondent no. 3.

There is an interesting dispute of facts in the present case. While it is a consistent stand of the State Consumer Commission before the Information Commission as well as before this Court that they had never supplied the translated copy of the order in Hindi to respondent no. 3, the Information Commission while passing the impugned order has imposed penalty on an assumption that the translated copy of the order in Hindi was initially not supplied to respondent no. 3 but was supplied thereafter though belatedly and it was the late supply of copy of the order in Hindi that has caused obstruction and, therefore, the penalty has been calculated for the number of days of delay. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that they had not supplied the translated copy of the order to respondent no. 3 as according to the petitioner consumer commission is not liable to pass its orders in Hindi or to supply translated copy of the orders in Hindi, either under the Right to Information Act or any other provision of law. What this Court is, therefore, considering is only as to whether respondent no. 3 was liable to be given a copy of the order in Hindi, particularly when such a request was made before the State Consumer Commission, which is undisputedly a public authority under the Right to Information Act.

The argument of the petitioner i