-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4438 OF 2011 Raju Kumar Patil. ..Petitioner. Versus The State Information Commissioner & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Kirit J. Hakani for the petitioner. Ms. Veena Shippy, respondent no. 4, party-in-person present. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : August 29, 2011. P. C. : 1. Mr. Hakani, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset seeks oral leave to delete name of respondent no.1. Leave is granted. Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of the State Information Commission passed on 9/2/2011 whereby penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on him under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of first proviso to section 20(1) of the Act, he was not heard and due procedure was not followed before imposing penalty. Respondent no.4 in person, i.e., original complainant, in above circumstances submitted that she has no objection if the matter is remanded to the State Information Commission to decide the issue of penalty srp -: 2 :- afresh. In view of the concession of respondent no.4, the petition is disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (i) The impugned order to the extent of imposition of penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the State Information Commission to decide the said issue after affording an opportunity to both the parties. (ii) The State Information Commission is requested to dispose of the issue in question as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)