IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2875 of 2010 1. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE J. SINHA R/O MOH.- JUDGES COLONY, R.P.S. ROAD, P.S.- DANAPUR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, FOURTH FLOOR, SOOCHNA BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, BIHAR 2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE TOWN COMMISSIONER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA For the Petitioner:- Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate For S.I.C.:- Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate & Smt. Binita Singh, Advocate For P.M.C.:- Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, S.C.-22 & Mr. S.S. Kumar, Advocate ----------- 02. 03.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State Information Commission. The petitioner, the Chief Accounts Officer in the Patna Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2009, in Complaint Case No. 12503 of 2008-09 imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/- upon him passed by the State Information Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the position that the petitioner was well aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Information Commission. Once the petitioner admits that he had furnished incomplete information on 24.5.2008 and which is the reason for the 2 impugned order imposing fine on him, the defence that he furnished it later or that the failure to furnish the relevant information as noticed by the Commission was not mala fide, but an inadvertent errors merits no consideration in the writ jurisdiction as apart from the question of mala fide Section 20 of the Right to Information Act specifically contemplates an order of penalty if a person knowingly gives incomplete information. Once the Commission has arrived at the conclusion based on materials before it when the petitioner was adequately aware of the pendency of the proceedings, there is no occasion for the Writ Court to start a re- assessment over the findings of the Commission, whether the incomplete information was knowingly given or not. Once it is admitted that the information furnished was incomplete, insofar as the question of judicial review is concerned, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the order. Learned counsel for the Commission finds it difficult to satisfy the Court with regard to the legality of the direction contained in the order of the Commission dated 29.6.2009 giving directions to the Patna Municipal Corporation for dismissal of the petitioner, when Section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act only provides for recommending disciplinary action. What is the punishment to be imposed, if any, is for the Patna Municipal Corporation alone to decide. 3 That part of the order dated 29.6.2009 directing dismissal is therefore set aside and the order stands modified to that extent. The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification of the order dated 29.6.2009. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J. )