1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 192/2011 IN WRIT PETITION No. 5131/2010. The Public Information Authority and Head Mistress. -VERSUS- State Information Commissioner. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 28.06.2011. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for appellant, Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and N.M. Jibhkate, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. In view of the request made by the parties, we have heard the Letters Patent Appeal on merits. Challenge is to judgment of learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2011 in Writ Petition No.5131/2010 in proceedings under Right to 2 Information Act. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the Writ Petition filed by the present appellant and while confirming the order of imposing penalty dated 03.11.2009, the subsequent order dated 29.06.2010 passed in Appeal by the State Commission, imposing additional penalty amount of Rs. 5000/- has been set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondent no.1 State Commission for deciding the complaint filed by the present respondent no.2, afresh. Today Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for appellant has filed an affidavit producing the copy of that order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the State Commission. He points out that the State Commission has found it necessary to direct Education Officer (Secondary) to conduct an inquiry about the custody of the proceeding book of Administrator and after that proceeding book becomes available, to supply information, as demanded by the respondent no.2. It is further directed that if, the proceeding book could not be traced, liability for its loss should be fixed and appropriate action in that respect should be taken against the person found guilty. According to Shri 3 Chandurkar, learned Counsel in view of this development, the order dated 03.11.2009 which imposes penalty of Rs. 1000/- upon the appellant cannot now stand. Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 does not dispute the subsequent order. Shri Jibhkate, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 points out that the earlier order dated 01.08.2009 passed by the First Appellate Authority namely the Education Officer [Secondary] was never questioned and it still stands as it is. He contends that the order dated 03.11.2009 questioned before the learned Single Judge was passed in Appeal No. 975/2009, which was preferred by the respondent no.2. It is apparent that after hearing the respective counsel, the learned Single Judge of this Court has remanded the matter back for fresh consideration to the respondent no.1. The order passed after remand by the Appellate Authority i.e. the State Commission is inconsistent with the order dated 4 01.08.2009 on which Shri Jibhkate, learned Counsel is placing reliance. The said order dated 01.08.2009 cannot be therefore, said to be holding the field and ceases to be valid. In such situation, we direct the appellant to deposit the fine of Rs.1000/- as imposed by order dated 03.11.2009 with the First Appellate Authority namely the Education Officer {Secondary} Zilla Parishad, Nagpur who has also been asked to trace out the proceeding book and supply the information to respondent no.2. The said Authority can after completing action, as directed by the Appellate Authority [respondent no.1] in its order dated 29.06.2010, make over that amount to respondent no.2, if he is found entitled to it. With this modification, we dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd