IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2161 of 2010 (M/S) V.C. Purohit, Executive Engineer (Headquarter) Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan and Nirman Nigam Dehradun … Petitioner Versus Information Commissioner Dehradun and another .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. ) Heard Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the writ petition be disposed of finally without inviting counter version. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 moved an application before him on 5-10-2009 seeking information under Right to Information Act and since the information was not available with him, on 6.10.2009, the petitioner transferred the application of respondent No.2 to General Manager (Administration) Pey Jal Nigam, with a copy to Finance Director, Pey Jal Nigam under Section 6(3) of the Act. It is further alleged by the petitioner that all the information sought by respondent No.2 was related to Group-A Officer and the relevant record is not with the petitioner but the same is available with the officer at Headquarter or with State Government. Therefore, the alleged delay in providing information as stated in impugned order is baseless. In para-15 of the writ petition the petitioner has mentioned that no show cause notice was given to the successor of 2 the Public Information Officer before passing impugned order of penalty. The penalty was imposed U/S 20 of the Act and show cause notice was necessary to the P.I.O. which was not given in this case. Since no show cause notice has been given to the petitioner P.I.O., therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15-11-2010, passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondent No.1, Information Commissioner Dehradun, to issue show cause notice to the petitioner as well as to his successor and take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. Dated: 22-12-2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB