HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 3. WRIT PETITION (CT N0. 4023 OF 2007 Ramsai Sing.h, S/o Late Shri Naferiam, aged about' 32 years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Tarkeshwarpur, R/'o viiiage Tarkeshwarpur, Block Premnagar, Tahsi! &Dist.Sarguja(CG). Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Information Commission, through Chief Information Commissioner, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (CG$. 2. Coilector, Sarguja (CG). Executive Officer. Janoad Premnagar, Dfet. Sarguja Chief Par (CG). 4. Sufaldas. S/o Bhanaidas, R/o vliiaae Tarkesh'A'arpur, Block Premnagar, Tahstl &Dsst.Sarguja(CG). (Writpetition under Article-226 of the Constitution of tndia) Singie Bench : Mon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Sa!yendrs;Sahu, counsei fbr the petitioner. -^•Shri Pankaj Shritfa^aj^s,'Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri N. Naha Roy,Wtinsel for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 18th day of August, 2009) Heard learned counset for the parties. The petitioner seeks tp chalfenge the legality and vatidity of the order dated 19th June, 2007 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Information Commission, Raipur {for short "the Commission"), in appeal No.589/06, imposing a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards "penalty ynder the provisions of Section 20 (1) ofthe RighS to information Act, 2005 (for short "theAct, 2005") and a sum of Rs.500/'- under the provisions of Section 19 (8) (b) oftheAct,2005. The order dat^d 19 June, 2007 was passed on the ground that the ostitioner failed to apoear before the Commission and further faifed.to supply the requisite information as sought for by the G 5. 8. Shri Sahu, learned counse! appearing for the petitloner, submits that the Detitioner has not received anv notice 'of the Commission and without affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain the reasons, the Impugned order dateci 19 June, 2007 has been oassed. Be that as it may, since according to the iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitloner has not received any summons, notice or letter from the Commission, the order dated 19 June, 2007 appearsto b®unjust and improper. Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent submits that if the Detitioner has not received anv notice or summons, he may be granted opportunity to explain the reasons for delay before the Commission. . In view offoregojng, without expressing anyo'pinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 19th June, 2007 (Annexure - P/1) is set aside. The matter is remittsd back to the Commission to oass aoDroDriate orders. in accordanoe with iaw and on its own merite, after affording proper oppprtunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let the petitioner appear before ths Commission on the 14 September, 2009 to explain the reasons for deiay and further submit documents, if any, tosatisiy requirement of the Commission. Sn the resuft, the writ petition is aiiowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri