IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1945 of 2008 (M/S) Shyam Singh S/o Sri Diwan Singh Rana Presently posted as Tehsildar Khanij (Mining) Dehradun. …………… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Revenue, Dehradun. 2. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun. 3. District Magistrate, Dehradun. 4. Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 5. Rajpal Singh R/o Village & Post Paschimiwala, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. ……………. Respondents Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 23.09.2008, passed by respondent No. 4, whereby a fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (respondent No. 4) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the application for information sought by respondent No. 5 was addressed to Sub Divisional Magistrate and not to the Tehsildar, the post petitioner held. It is further contended that petitioner was not even party in the appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner. Not only this, it is pointed out from the order itself it is clear that even the notice which was issued before imposing penalty was sent to a wrong name i.e. R.S. Rana (petitioner’s name is Shyam Singh Rana). 4) In the above circumstances, merely for the reason that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 4, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent No. 4 has committed error of law by imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 23.09.2008, passed by respondent No. 4, in Appeal No. A-744/2008, is liable to be quashed. 5) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of summarily with the direction that the impugned order dated 23.09.2008, passed by respondent No. 4, in Appeal No. A-744 / 2008, against the petitioner imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and directing that departmental enquiry be initiated against him, is hereby quashed. However, it is left open for respondent No. 4 to issue fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to the petitioner, pass fresh orders. (Stay Application No. 7262 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 03, 2008. H.Negi