IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.962 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR SHAHI, son of late Ratneshwar Shahi, resident of Saryakali Asthan Road, Gopalganj, P.S. and District Gopalganj … Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, 4th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna, through its Secretary 2. The Information Commissioner, 4th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna 3. The Assistant Registrar, State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna 4. The Legal Officer cum Registrar (Judicial), State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna 5. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 6. Shri Rajendra Prasad Shah, son of late Ram Prasad Sah, resident of village Lalapur Bhader, Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur … Respondents-Respondents ----------- 5. 23.3.2011 Heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner and Mrs. Binita Singh, learned counsel for the State Information Commission. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 7604/2009 Mr. Jha has raised two questions while questioning the impugned order passed by the Commission dated 29th April, 2009 imposing a fine of Rs. 8,750/- on the appellant- writ petitioner for the period of 13.10.2008 to 16.11.2008:- 2 (a) The Commission has failed to take into account that the information was sought by respondent no.6 on 12.6.2008 on a date when the appellant- writ petitioner was not even posted as a Circle Officer, Kahalgaon and he came to be posted on 29.7.2008 but well before his joining his predecessor had already given the information as sought for by respondent no.6 in his application dated 12.6.2008 on 25.7.2008. (b) The admitted date of joining of the appellant- writ petitioner being 27.7.2008 and he had also again given the information to respondent no.6 on 17.11.2008, he would not be liable for being held responsible in withholding information, inasmuch as the period to be computed in that case would have begun only from 29.7.2008. Mrs. Singh, on the other hand, would submit that it is not correct to say that the predecessor of the appellant- petitioner had given full information, inasmuch as whatever is shown to have been given in the information contained in the 3 letter dated 25.7.2008 does not seem to be the information really asked for by respondent no.6. She has further contended that the date of withholding prescribed information in any event will commence from the date of filing of the complaint and not from the date of joining of the respective officer. While we in absence of original record would not like to make any final pronouncement on the aforesaid aspects but then we must make it clear that since it is an individual penal action affecting a particular officer, which also involves his future career the Commission will always have to take a pragmatic view while taking into account the default on the part of such officer only from the date he assumes charge of the post in question. That being so, we would find this case to be a fit case for being remitted back to the Commission for reconsidering the whole aspect as explained above. We may hasten to add here that we have not given our final opinion touching on the merit of the case. It would be therefore open for the 4 Chief Information Commissioner to take his fresh final decision strictly in accordance with law. In order to shorten the dispute we would direct the appellant- petitioner to appear on 18th April, 2011 and in the event of failure of his appearance the earlier order passed against him by the Chief Information Commissioner as affirmed by the learned Single Judge shall become operative. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this appeal is disposed of. (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/