1 15wp1873.2022..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1873 OF 2022 Rajendra s/o Eknath Dekate, age 60 yrs, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Flat No. S-2, 2nd floor, Sudhanta Vihar apartment, Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal ...PETITIONER ...V E R S U S... 1. State of Maharashtra, thr Chief Information Commission, Mumbai 2. The State Information Commission, Amravati Bench, Amravati 3. Public Information Officer, (Tahsildar), Tahsil Office, Yavatmal 4. Sk. Abdul Khalil Sk. Mustafar, Age : adult, r/o Prabhat Nagar, Bhosa Road, Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.A. Sonawane, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, AGP for respondent Nos.1&2/State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE : - 24.03.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 16.4.2021, 2026:BHC-NAG:5502 2 15wp1873.2022..odt passed by respondent No. 2 – the State Information Commissioner, Amravati (for short, Second Appellate Authority”), in Complaint No. AM-282/2020, filed by respondent no. 4. 3. Respondent no. 4, by filing an application dated 10.3.2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “RTI Act”), sought information from the Public Information Officer, Tahsildar, Yavatmal. Respondent no. 4 was directed to appear before the Public Information Officer’s office to collect the information sought. However, instead of doing the same, respondent no. 4 filed a first appeal. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order in first appeal, he filed a second appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. The Second Appellate Authority passed order dated 21.11.2016 in appeal bearing no. 2110/2012, wherein the petitioner was directed to present his show cause, so as to not impose penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on him within 15 days. Thereafter, the reply was filed by the petitioner. Lastly, the Complaint no. 282/2020 came to be filed by respondent No. 4 wherein after finding the fact that, the petitioner neither supplied the information nor filed reply, the State Information Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3 15wp1873.2022..odt 4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties; I have gone through the record. 5. Though various grounds have been raised the main contention of the petitioner is that, inspite of filing the reply, it was not considered by the Second Appellate Authority. Attention is drawn to the reply of the petitioner dated 13.4.2017 wherein it has been informed that vide letter dated 16.2.2017, the petitioner has informed that, the information sought, is not available in the office. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the said reply has not been considered by the Second Appellate Authority and without considering that reply, the fine has been imposed. 6. Perusal of the record, shows the abovementioned reply is filed prior to filing of the subsequent Complaint No. 282/2020. Further, previous complaints filed by respondent no. 4, if any, does not appear in the record, but the fact remains that, the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner vide the order passed in the Complaint bearing No. 282/2020, for not providing information sought by observing that reply has not been filed by the petitioner. 4 15wp1873.2022..odt 7. On the other hand, it appears that while imposing penalty vide the impugned order in the complaint bearing no. 282/2020, no separate show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 8. Moreover, the proviso to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act provides that before imposing the penalty, the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the incumbent officer. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.4.2021 does not stand to the reason and is required to be set aside. 9. The order dated 16.4.2021, passed by the State Information Commission, Amravati, is hereby set aside to the extend of imposing penalty and the matter is remanded back to the Commission to decide the Complaint No. 282/2020 afresh, in view of the observations made above. 10. The petition is partly allowed. Rule Accordingly. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Belkhede PS