1 WP 2822.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2010 1. Karbhari S/o Yeshvant Kardile Age : 60 Years, Occ. : Pensioner, ( Retired Head Master) R/o : Majle Chincholi, Tq. & Dist. : Ahmednagar. 2. Usha D/o Ambadas Shinde Age : 56 Years, Occ. : Service, ( Present Head Master) R/o : Majle Chincholi, Tq & Dist.: Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State Information Commission Bench at Aurangabad Near District Audit & Registrar Office at Aurangabad. 2. The Secretory & Appellate authority Majle Chincholi Gramseva Mandal, Majle Chincholi, Tq & Dist. : Ahmednagar. 3. Sandeep S/o Ramdas Palve R/o : Majle Chincholi, Tq & Dist.: Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 2822.2010 - ( J ) Mr. R.D.Sanap, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.H.Dighe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. H.V.Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Mr. P.R.Shahane, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/06/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioners assails the Order dated 24/12/2009 passed by the Respondent no. 1 imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioners. 4. Mr. Sanap, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact an explanation was submitted on 20/6/2009 to the appellate authority, which was received by their office on 22/6/2009, so also an explanation was submitted on 1/2/2010 which was received by their office 3 WP 2822.2010 - ( J ) on 4/2/2010, but the same had not been considered. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners had not willfully or deliberately avoided to issue information, but after they received the application seeking information, the petitioners had sought guidance from the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad and because of that, the delay was caused. 5. Mr. P.R. Shahane, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Mr. V.H. Dighe, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 1 supported the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners have intentionally avoided to give the information and the order imposing penalty has been rightly passed. The petitioners were duty bound to give the information having failed to do so and further having failed to give the necessary explanation to the show cause and the interim order passed, were rightly saddled with the penalty. 6. It appears that the petitioners on 20/6/2009 and 1/2/2010 had given explanation, which is also acknowledged by the office of the respondent no. 1. The explanation is given in the said letters. They have submitted that due to the ignorance, they had sought guidance from the Education Officer of the Zilla Parishad and because of the same, immediately the information sought could not be given. 4 WP 2822.2010 - ( J ) 7. Be that as it may. The petitioners have been mulet with the amount of penalty on the count that no explanation has been given. The petitioners have produced on record the copy of the explanation showing the acknowledgment of the respondent no. 1 of having received the said explanation. 8. From the aforesaid conspectus, it appears that there was no deliberate or willful act on the part of the petitioners in not providing any information. The delay caused in providing information was due to the fact that they were awaiting necessary information from the Zilla Parishad. As such, though there is delay in giving the information as sought by the respondent no. 3, the same can not be said to be willful so as to mulet the petitioners. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 2822.2010 - ( J )