1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5187 OF 2010. Shrikant Wasudeorao Khade -: VERSUS :- Hon’ble State Information Commission and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri S.K. Tambde, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.4. It is apparent that a recommendation to conduct departmental enquiry as per Section 20 [2] of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not a penalty and therefore, there is no question of hearing the concerned officer in the matter. It is also apparent that as the learned Appellate Authority (State Information Commissioner) found some investigation necessary, action to impose penalty under section 20[1] of the Act has not been taken. Shri Tambde, learned Counsel has tried to show justification and to bring on record circumstances in which 2 the information could not be furnished within time. However, it is not necessary for this court to look into those aspects, as that is the defence available to petitioner in departmental enquiry. The defence is to be looked into by disciplinary authority uninfluenced by the orders made by State Commission or by this Court. Attention is also invited to the orders dated 04.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1520 of 2009 where in similar circumstances, this Court issued Rule and granted interim relief. However, as I am deciding the matter, it is apparent that the said order cannot be construed as a precedent. In view of the above, I do not find any prejudice is caused to the petitioner at this stage. Writ Petition is therefore, not entertained. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.