IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4531 of 2009 SANDHYA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS. ----------- 4/ 14/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Commission. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2008 and the consequential orders dated 5.1.2009/17.2.2009 imposing and recovering a fine of Rs.25,000/- for her failure to supply necessary information to an applicant as directed by the Commission. The controversy arises in the discharge of additional duties by the petitioner as C.D.P.O. at Dehri (Urban). Learned counsel for the Commission is unable to dispute the contention of the petitioner that she relinquished the additional charge as C.D.P.O. of Dehri (Urban) on 14.7.2008. In the nature of the order to be passed, the Court does not consider it necessary to take note of the facts of the case except to the extent necessary so as not to prejudice the case of either side. On 20.6.2008 the Commission noticed that notwithstanding the order dated 13.5.2008 the necessary information had not been - 2 - furnished by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she did furnish the information. The aforesaid order then goes on to hold that the notice from the Commission upon the petitioner for the delay in furnishing of information could not be served upon her on the address supplied and was then directed to be served through the District Magistrate. She was required to file her explanation in the matter on the next date fixed as 25.8.2008. The petitioner in the meantime had already relinquished charge on 14.7.2008. The Court finds substance in the contention on behalf of the petitioner that after she relinquished charge as the C.D.P.O., Dehri (Urban) on 14.7.2008, she may have rightly believed that it was no more her responsibility to deal with the matter and that it was the duty of the new incumbent to furnish the necessary information to the Commission. The new incumbent appears to have taken the stand that it was for the petitioner to answer issues. In this background, the Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not appeared and furnished any explanation leading to the imposition of the fine. This Court is satisfied that at this stage it would suffice to set aside the order dated 25.8.2008 and the consequential orders dated 5.1.2009/17.2.2009 with - 3 - a direction to the petitioner to submit her reply before the Commission within a maximum period of eight weeks from today. If the petitioner does not file her explanation before the Commission within the period of eight weeks from today, the writ application shall be deemed to have been dismissed when the respondents may proceed to release the fine in accordance with law, if not already realized. If the petitioner furnishes her reply before the Commission within eight weeks from today, let the matter be disposed off afresh by a reasoned and speaking order facilitating judicial review, should the need arise. Recovery, if any in the meantime shall abide by such fresh decision. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)