The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate authority, under section 20 of the Act of 2005, cannot be subjected to a penalty, and the actions of the respondents No. 2 and 3 were found to be in good faith.

( 1. ) In the present case, the petitioner a practising advocate, Kailaras district Morena has filed the present writ petition for issuance of an appropraite writ, order or direction for initiating action in the matter of imposition of penalty against the respondent No. 2 as per section 20 of the Right of Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of2005). The contention of the petitioner is that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has issued a notification under the provisions of the Act of2005, notifying the Public Information Officers as well as the appellate authorities and the petitioner as per the provisions of section 6 (1) of the Act of2005, has preferred an application seeking certain information. It has been categorically stated that an application was preferred before the District and Sessions Judge, Morena seeking certain information. The petitioner has further stated that the Public Information Officer (respondent No. 3) has processed the matter, however, he sought instructions in the matter from the respondent No. 2 (appellate authority). The petitioner has further stated that the respondent No. 2 (appellate authority) has issued a letter dated 11th January, 2007 to the In-charge, Copying section, not to grant copies in the light of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005. The petitioner has also stated that the Public Information Officer has failed to dispose of his application within the prescribed period of thirty days as provided under section 17 of the Act of 2005 and, therefore, a first appeal was preferred under section 19 of the Act of 2005 before the appellate authority. The petitioner has further stated that the appellate authority as notified by the High Court is the District and Sessions Judge, Morena and, no order was passed by the appellate authority and finally an appeal was also preferred before the State Information Commission and an order was passed by the State Information Commission as contained in Annexure P/1 for granting information under the Act of2005. The petitioner has further stated that the State Information Commission while passing an order dated 10th April, 2008 has also directed for issuance of show cause notice to the Public Information Officer for imposition of punishment upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that no further action has been taken in the matter and, therefore, an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued in the peculiar facts and circumstanes of the case for imposition of penalty upon the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(1) The writ of Mandamus and or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued whereby the part of the impugned order dated 1 Oth April, 2008 (Annexure P/1) lacking initiation of action of imposing penalty against the respondent No. 2 as per section 20 of the Act be quashed.

(2) That, the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to initiate action as per section 20 of the Act for imposing penalty against the appellate authority respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. (3) Any other relief as this Honble Court deems fit, may kindly be granted doing justice in the matter."

( 2. ) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 has categorically stated in the reply which is duly supported by an affidavit that the respondent No. 2 was not the Chief Information Officer at any point of time. The respondent No. 2 has not denied that the petitioner has submitted an application to the Public Information Officer under the Act of2005 and has also categorically stated that some clarification was sought by the Officer-in-charge of the copying section and he has clarified to the Officer-in-charge of the copying section vide letter dated 11th January, 2007 that the information as desired by the petitioner cannot be furnished to him. The respondent No. 2 has also stated that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the matter a