IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 317 of 2010. Deep Narayan Baluni, presently posted as Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikari, Vikash Khand Agatsyamuni, District Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Uttarakhand Information Commission, through its Chief Information Commissioner, C-30, Sector-1, Defence Colony, Dehradun. 2. Khand Vikash Adhikari, Vikash Khand Agatsyamuni, District Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand. 3. Chief Development Officer, District-Rudraprayag. …Respondents. Mr. I.D.Paliwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for respondent nos. 2 &3. Date March 15, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1421 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 is accepted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, advocate, while notices on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 are accepted by Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents agree that this writ petition may be disposed of today without inviting counter affidavits. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15- 2-2010 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure-8 to the petition). Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to implement the order dated 15-2-2010 has also been sought. 2 Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the petition has stated that when the show cause notice, which was issued by the second appellate authority on 15-2-2010, he had already been transferred from Block Pratapnagar, district Tehri Garhwal to district Rudraprayag in the month of October 2009. Subsequent to that, when this fact came to the notice of the second appellate authority, the second appellate authority had issued another show cause notice at the transferred place on 26-2-2010 vide dispatch no. 309. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the petition. According to the petitioner, a perusal of postal cover show that the notice was dispatched on 26-2-2010, which the impugned order imposing penalty was passed by the respondent no. 1 on 15-2-2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, contended that it cannot be said the impugned order had been passed by the respondent no. 1 after hearing the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the provision of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005 has been violated in the case at hand, because no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner before imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- against him, therefore, the impugned order dated 15-2-2010 passed by respondent no.1 is not tenable against the petitioner. Proviso one appended to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 makes it obligatory that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the Officer concerned before any penalty is imposed against him. In the above facts and circumstances, it is obvious that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. As such, there 3 has been violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that this Court in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2009 (M/S) L. Fanai Vs. The Uttarakhand Information Commission and another has passed an order dated 26-6-2009 whereby the order of the Information Commission was set aside. The facts of the case at hand are almost similar. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have fairly conceded that the matter was remanded to the Information Commission by order dated 26-6-2009 in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2009 (M/S). In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order dated 15-2-2010 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure-8 to the petition) is set aside. The Information Commission, Uttarakhand is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, the Information Commission may pass suitable order in the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the second appellate authority-Chief Information Commissioner, Dehradun on 2- 4-2010. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4