IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 266 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 8th July, 2010. Sarita Bhandari Petitioner through Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate Versus State Information Commissioner & Anr. Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2009 [Annexure P-7] issued by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana in purported exercise of his powers under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on account of the alleged failure of the petitioner to provide necessary information to respondent No. 2 on time. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have been duly served. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 nor any reply has been filed. On a bare reading of the averments made in the writ petition which have gone un-rebutted, it is apparent that some delay was caused in providing information sought by respondent No. 2 on account of the fact that the Dealing Clerk, namely, Dhiraj Kumar remained absent from duty w.e.f. 31.10.2008 and the nature of information sought by respondent No. 2 was not the one which could be readily available with the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been completely over-looked by the State Information Commissioner while imposing the fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.10.2009 and 3.12.2009, firstly imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner and thereafter giving a notice to show cause as to why penalty @ Rs.250/- per day be not imposed, are hereby quashed. Disposed of. Dasti. July 08, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE