IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13875 of 2009 Om Prakash Mandal Versus The State Information Commission & Ors. 4/ 06/09/2011 Heard learend counsel for the petitioner and the Information Commission. The petitioner, the erstwhile Circle Officer, Kalyanpur at Samastipur is aggrieved by the orders dated 13.1.2009 and 20.2.2009 imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- against him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘R.T.I. Act’) and declining to review the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the queries under the R.T.I. Act were duly replied on 8.9.2008 to the extent possible as all of them did not relate to his jurisdiction pointing out the source from where the remaining information could be obtained. The same explanation furnished by the successor Circle Officer has been accepted even while the impugned penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. His request to re-consider the fine imposed has been declined on grounds of absence of powers for review. Learned counsel for the Commission submitted that prior to 8.9.2008 the petitioner had declined to furnish any information on 30.4.2008. The 2 R.T.I. application came to be rejected when it was carried in second appeal and notice issued to the petitioner on 14.7.2008 only whereafter he furnished the information on 8.9.2008. There is no reason why he could not have furnished the same information earlier on 30.4.2008. Relying on Section-20 of the R.T.I. Act it was submitted that the penalty is imposed at the rate prescribed of Rs.250/- per day subject to a maximum amount of Rs.25,000/-, not with regard to items of information supplied or not supplied, but in a composite manner for the lapse in furnishing of information. Even if the Court were to limit down the fault of the petitioner to item No.1 of the query in part only, the penalty amount will remain the same. The successor Circle Officer furnished complete information with regard to query no.1. The petitioner was therefore clearly at fault. Each case coming before the Court has to be decided on its own facts. The application of the law has necessarily to be dependent on the facts. No law can be applied devoid of the foundational facts. On 30.4.2008 undoubtedly the petitioner did not furnish any reply to all the four queries. Subsequently on 8.9.2008 he has furnished his reply in part to query No.1. The successor Circle Officer furnished the complete reply to query 3 no.1. As far as the remaining three queries are concerned, the Court finds that there is no difference in his stand with that taken by the successor Circle Officer on 4.5.2009 accepted by the appellate authority. The fine of Rs.25,000/- came to be imposed on the petitioner based on his reply on 8.9.2008 before the successor Circle Officer took a similar stand on 4.5.2009. What was accepted with regard to the latter could not be rejected with regard to the former. But, simultaneously the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court that he was vigilant in furnishing complete information with regard to query No.1 to the extent that his successor did furnish. But, the penalty has been imposed on him on basis of his inability to furnish replies to all the four queries. It now transpires that it is not the correct position on facts. In view of the information furnished by the successor Circle Officer with regard to the latter three queries it is not possible for the Court to decipher if the fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed was for failure to furnish information under all four heads or was it confined to the inability to furnish full information with regard to item No.1 alone. Perhaps, the occasion to consider that was not available to the authority on the date that the fine was imposed as he did not have the benefit of the stand of the 4 successor Circle Officer. The matter is therefore remanded to the Commission to that limited extent for examining the quantum of the fine imposed in view of the factual position that he furnished only part information to query no.1, but on the other three queries his stand has been vindicated by reason of similar response given by the successor Circle Officer and which came to be accepted. To facilitate passing of such fresh order, the impugned orders are set aside for that limited purpose. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)