IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2732 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 23rd August 2010. Devinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Dy.AG, Punjab. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 2732 of 2010 and 19716 of 2009 as both the writ petitions have been directed against the order dated 5.5.2009 [Annexure P-1] passed by the State Information Commissioner, Punjab, whereby besides imposing penalties on the petitioners for their alleged delay in the supply of information to respondent No.3, disciplinary action has also been recommended against them in purported exercise of the powers under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners are Additional Deputy Commissioner [Development], Ludhiana and the Legal Advisor-cum-Information Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, respectively. Respondent No. 3 moved an application dated 28.8.2008 whereby several types of informations regarding receipt of applications for 'information' under the RTI, designation of Assistant Public Information Officers and details of the applications received by such APIOs or appeals under the RTI etc. were sought. The afore-stated information was not supplied within the stipulated period of thirty days, which led to the filing of a complaint by respondent No. 3 before the State Information Commission, Punjab. The impugned orders have been passed pursuant to that complaint. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, as per the office report, respondent No. 3 has been duly served but no one appears on his behalf nor any reply/affidavit has been filed by him even though on 04.08.2010 he was permitted to put in appearance at any time before today's date of hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. While penalizing the petitioners or recommending disciplinary action against them, the State Information Commission has no where held that the petitioners were the custodian of the information sought or it was their duty only to supply the requisite information. Similarly, no reason whatsoever has been assigned in support of the conclusion that the petitioners did not make any sincere efforts to supply the information in time. While imposing penalty or recommending disciplinary action, the State Information Commission is not only obligated to scrutinize the nature of information sought by an applicant and the amount of time likely to be spent in collecting or up-dating such information, it is also its bounden duty to find out as to whether there has been a deliberate or willful attempt to suppress the information. In the absence of any such firm finding, the punitive action is wholly unwarranted. It may be noticed here that according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the requisite information has already been supplied to respondent No. 3. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned order dated 5.5.2009 [Annexure P-1] to the extent it imposes penalty on the petitioners or recommends disciplinary action against them, is hereby set aside. Dasti. August 23, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE