IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 419 of 2010. Smt. Sunita Singh, R.T.O./Appellate Authority-Public Information Officer, R.T.O., Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Sector 1, C-30, Defence Colony, Dehradun. 2. Shri Surendra Aggarwal S/O not known resident of 104, Ishwar Vihar, Phase-2, Raipur Road, Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. Bupesh Kandpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Date March 31, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1917 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 is accepted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, advocate. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 8-2- 2010 and 2-3-2010 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectively to the writ petition) in so far as the same relates to the petitioner. By the order dated 2-3-2010, a penalty of Rs. 4,200/- has been imposed against the petitioner. The only grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given to her before imposing the penalty of Rs. 4,200/- against the petitioner as public authority by the respondent no.1 by his order dated 2-3-2010 passed in Appeal No. A-2030 of 2009, Sri Surendra Agrawal Vs. Public Information Officer/R.T.O. Dehradun and another. According to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned 2 orders dated 8-2-2010 and 2-3-2010, no notice was sent to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that it cannot be said that adequate opportunity of hearing was available to the petitioner before imposing the penalty of Rs. 4,200/- against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Proviso one appended to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short the Act) has vehemently urged that no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner. Proviso one appended to Section 20 of Act makes it obligatory that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the Officer concerned before any penalty is imposed against him. In the above facts and circumstances, it is obvious that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/Public Authority before passing the impugned orders. As such, there has been violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that this Court in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2009 (M/S) L. Fanai Vs. The Uttarakhand Information Commission and another has passed an order dated 26-6-2009 whereby the order of the Information Commission was set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has fairly conceded that the matter was remanded to the Information Commission by order dated 26-6-2009 in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2009 (M/S). In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned 3 orders passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure- 1 and Annexure-2 to the petition) are set aside in so far as they relate to the petitioner. The Information Commission, Uttarakhand is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, the Information Commission may pass suitable order afresh in the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the second appellate authority-Chief Information Commissioner, Dehradun on 19- 4-2010. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4