WP(C) 5419/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned standing counsel, Irrigation Department. The petitioner submitted a petition before the State Information Commission comp laining that the information sought for by him was not furnished by the State Pu blic Information Officer (SPIO) in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Assam. The State Information Commission decided to draw up a Proceeding under S ection 18(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (briefly \the Act\ hereafter) . The SPIO was directed to furnish the required information by 26-7-2011 vide th e order dated 30-5-2011 issued by the Chief Information Commissioner, Assam. By Order dated 26-7-2011 the State Chief Information Commissioner observed that cer tain information as sought for were furnished to the petitioner but information against point Nos. 2 and 3 were not furnished to the petitioner. The Deputy Chie f Engineer (Irrigation), Assam who was present before the State Information Comm ission on that day submitted that the process was being finalised to furnish the said information and prayed for some more time. The State Commission by the sai d order directed that the information pertaining to point Nos. 2 and 3 be furnis hed to the petitioner after 30 days from the date of the said order with an inti mation to the Commission. Thereafter the petitioner complained on 23-8-2011 befo re the State Chief Information Commissioner that despite the order passed, the r equisite information was not furnished to him. The State Information Commission vide memo dated 5-9-2011 forwarded the said complaint petition of the petitioner to the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) directing the said authority to submit a com pliance report on the above matter within 10 days. In spite of such direction, t he petitioner has submitted that the direction of the Commission has not been co mplied with. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this court. On 28-10-2011 this Court directed the learned standing counsel, Irrigation Depar tment to obtain necessary instruction as to why the information sought for had n ot been supplied to the petitioner. Today when the matter is called upon the lea rned standing counsel, Irrigation Department submits that he has no instruction in this regard. Considering the subject matter involved and the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the matter at this stage itself. Section 20 of the Act provides that where the State Information Commission at th e time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the SPIO has w ithout any reasonable cause refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished the information within the time specified or malafidely denie d the request for information or knowingly given incorrect , incomplete or misl eading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose pen alty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day on the SPIO till the information i s furnished, subject to the condition that the total amount of such penalty shou ld not exceed twenty five thousand rupees. However, before imposing such penalty , the SPIO is required to be given reasonable opportunity of being heard but the burden will be on the SPIO to prove that he had not acted unreasonably and with out due diligence. The State Information Commission has also the power to recomm end disciplinary action against the SPIO under the applicable service rules. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of by directing that if the info rmation sought for by the petitioner under point Nos. 2 and 3 are not furnished by the SPIO in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Assam within 3(thre e) weeks from today, the State Information Commissioner shall initiate proceedin gs against the said SPIO under Section 20 of the Act. This disposes of the writ petition.