IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16014 of 2009 1. SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD SINHA S/O LATE KASHI NATH SAHAY R/O HANUMAN NAGAR, MARANPUR, P.S. CIVIL LINE, GAYA, DISTT. GAYA AT PRESENT POSTED AS DISTRICT MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOOD CORPORATION, POWER HOUSE ROAD, DISTT. BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. BIHAR STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION THROUGH REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) SUCHANA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER SUCHANA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, SUCHANA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Anil Sinha, Adv. For Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 :- Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. (AAG-III) Mr. Binita Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, A.C. To G.A. 8 ----------- 5. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Advocate General No. III on behalf of the State Information Commission. The petitioner, the District Manager, State Food Corporation, Begusarai-cum-Public Information Officer is aggrieved by the order dated 28.5.2009 passed in Information Case No. 15200 of 2009, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,000/-on him for what is stated to be the delayed furnishing of information sought by a citizen under the Right to Information Act. Having heard counsels for the parties, the core of the question is whether any notice for 2 furnishing of the necessary information was given to the petitioner before 15.7.2009 or not. The petitioner contends that prior to that date no notice had been received by him. Counsel for the Commission submits that prior to that date notice had been issued to the petitioner on 2.3.2009 requiring him to furnish the relevant information by 17.4.2009 itself whereafter on proceeding, final order has been passed. This Court finds that the petitioner in his reply had made a statement in a line that prior to 15.7.2009, no notice had been received by him. The impugned order recites that no explanation have been given for delay in furnishing the information. There was an explanation. The sufficiency of the same was to be decided by the Commission as a question of fact. Whether notice had been received by the petitioner in pursuance of the proceedings dated 2.3.3009 or even thereafter prior to 15.7.2009 was to be delved into and decided by the Commission before imposing the punishment. There had to be a finding whether the explanation was valid or invalid from the records. The manner in which the Commission has disposed the defence simply saying that the delay had not been explained 3 is not sufficient. He had furnished a reason. It was for the Commission to decide the correctness of the reason. The order dated 22.7.2010 is set aside. There shall be no refund of the amount to the petitioner at this stage. The Commission is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass a reasoned order discussing all issues of facts more particularly with regard to the defence of the petitioner containing adequate discussion of the factum of service of notice on the petitioner and to arrive at a conclusive reasoned finding preferably within a maximum period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to state that the aspect of recovery shall abide by such fresh decision to be taken by the Commission. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)