IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 181 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.4.2011. Virender Kumar …Petitioner Versus. Union of India and others. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Petitioner in person. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Central Govt. Counsel. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. The petitioner asked for certain information from the Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi. The said application was transferred to the Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi since it related to that office. Thereafter the said application again transferred to the General Manager (Admn.) & CPIO, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi on 17.4.2009. On 27.4.2009 the DGM (Admn.) & CPIO of the National Highways Authority of India directed that information as required be supplied and if the information could not be supplied reasoned order be passed. 2 2. The present petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority of the National Highways Authority of India praying that penalty be imposed upon the CPIO and PIO for the delay in supplying the information which had still not been supplied to him. The First Appellate Authority passed an order on 12th June, 2009 and came to the conclusion that a reply had been filed to the applicant and there was no delay in providing the reply to the applicant. 3. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission and the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 23rd December, 2009 with the following directions:- “2. It is seen from the submissions made by the respondents dated 15.12.2009 that the information as requested by the appellant through his RTI application dated 4.4.2009 was held by the following offices:- (i) Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Rampur, Himachal Pradesh. (ii) Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. (iii) The Regional Officer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Kendriya Sadan, Sector-9, Chandigarh. 3. It is directed that within one week of the receipt of this order CPIO shall transfer appellant’s RTI application to the above mentioned holders of the 3 information (deemed-CPIO) under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. 4. Appeal disposed of with these directions. 5. Appellant has also demanded imposition of penalty on the CPIO for delay in furnishing the information to him as well as award of compensation for the alleged detriment suffered by him. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, I find no merit in the complaint, which is closed.” 4. As far as the complaint for imposition of penalty is concerned the Central Information Commission found no merit in the petition. I have heard Shri Virender Kumar, the petitioner, who is present in person and he submits that even till date the information has not been supplied to him. Repeated opportunities were given to the respondents to file reply but they have not cared to file reply till date. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 shall supply the information to the petitioner within one week of the petitioner’s supplying a certified copy of this order to the respondents No.3, 4 and 5 failing which each one of them who is a defaulter shall be liable to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti copy. 18th April, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.