JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, challenge is sought to be given to the order dated 01.09.2008 (Annex.7) as passed by the Rajasthan Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in Complaint Case No.102/2008 imposing penalty in the sum of Rs.25,000/- on the Department represented by the petitioner and awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the applicant-respondent No.1. 2. The background facts and relevant aspects of the matter are that the respondent No.1 submitted a request per Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'/'the Act of 2005') on 07.08.2007 (Annex.1) to the Public Information Officer, Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur seeking the following information concerning certain land acquisition proceedings:- " 1- jkT; ljdkj ds uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx ds i=kad i07 ( 21 ) u0fo0fo0@01@t;iqj fnukad 09-08-2005 }kjk fo'ks"kkf/kdkjh] uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx }kjk tkjh Hkwfe vokfIr vokMZ dks vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k] mls fdz;kfUor djus ds fy;s izeq[k 'kklu lfpo] uxjh; fodkl foHkkx] jkt0 ljdkj] t;iqj us vkxs dh dk;Zokgh gsrq uxj fodkl U;kl] tks/kiqj dks funsZ'k fn;s ( d`i;k ns[ksa layXu i= la0 1 ) mlds fefuV~l ;k funsZ'k i= dh izfrA 2- vkoklu vk;qDr Jh0,0ds0 gsedkj us izeq[k 'kklu lfpo] uxjh; fodkl foHkkx] jkt0 ljdkj dks tks i= dzekad 59 fnukad 31-01-2006 fy[kk ( layXu 2 ) ml ij dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh ( v ) uksV 'khV dh izfr o ( c ) tkjh i= dh izfrfyfi;kaA 3- mij of.kZr ( 1 ) ds vokMZ dks ykxw djkus ds fy;s uxjh; fodkl foHkkx }kjk tks Hkh vuqorhZv dk;Zokgh dh xbZ mldh ( v ) uksV'khV vkSj c tkjh i=ksa dh izfrfyfi;kaA 4- vkoklu e.My ds ftl i= ds vk/kkj ij vf/klwpuk la[;k i0 7 ( 21 ) ufo@3@2001 fnukad 28-08-2001 vkSj vkxs lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 18-1-2003 tkjh dh xbZ ml i= ( vkoklu e.My ) ds dh izfrA 5- uxjh; fodkl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad i07 ( 21 ) u0fo0fo0@3@01 fnukad 18-01-2003 ij tkjh mij 1 ds vokMZ ij vc tks/kiqj esa fdl vfHkdj.k@vf/kdkjh }kjk dk;Zokgh vuqeksfnr lEikfnr gksuh gs vFkkZr~ jkT; ljdkj us bldk mRrjnkf;Ro ftls lkSaik gS mldk fooj.kA " 3. The applicant, having not received the requisite information or the reply within the time specified in Section 7 (1) of the Act of 2005, proceeded to submit an appeal under Section 19 of the Act to the Appellate Authority on 09.09.2007 (Annex.2) stating that the desired information pertaining to the execution of the award made in the land acquisition proceedings having not been received, the same be ordered to be provided free of charge per Section 7 (6) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, the Additional Chief Secretary and Development Commissioner, proceeded to consider the matter in Appeal No.276/2007 and found that the petitioner had asked for the information with all the necessary particulars and it was entirely unjustified that the Department had not supplied such information; and directed the Department to do so within two weeks. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by its order dated 29.11.2007 (Annex.3) that reads as under:- " i=koyh izLrqr gqbZA bl izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ }kjk fnukad 07-08-2007 dks uxjh; fodkl foHkkx }kjk Hkwfe vokfIr vokMZ ds lEcU/k esa dfri; lwpuk;sa ekaxh xbZ FkhA vihykFkhZ dks okafNr lwpuk;sa ugha fn;s tkus ds dkj.k ;g vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- eSusa mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA uxjh; fodkl foHkkx }kjk bl izdj.k esa okafNr lwpuk ,d= djus dk lgh rjhds ls dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;kA vihykFkhZ }kjk ekaxh xbZ lwpuk;s fcYdqy Li"V gS] ijUrq blds ckotwn vihykFkhZ dks i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ,oa okafNr lwpuk dh Li"V tkudkjh nsus gsrq fy[kk tk jgk gSA vihykFkhZv us ftu 5 fcUnqvksa ij lwpuk ekaxh xbZ gS os vR;Ur Li"V gS rFkk tgka tgka vko';d gS] mUgksaus i=koyh dh la[;k o lEcfU/kr i= dh frfFk Hkh vafdr dh gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa uxjh; fodkl foHkkx }kjk lwpu miyC/k ugha djk;k tkuk loZFkk vuqfpr gSA 3- vr% mDr foospuk/khu vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk uxjh; fodkl foHkkx dks funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gSa fd vihykFkhZ dks 2 lIrkg esa okafNr lwpuk;sa miyC/k djk;saA " 4. The applicant-respondent No.1 thereafter filed the complaint before the Rajasthan Information Commission with the submissions that the Department had failed to supply him the requisite information despite the order of the Appellate Authority and despite his repeat requests on 06.01.2008 and 04.02.2008; and prayed for appropriate directions to the Department for supplying him the requisite information, for imposing penalty under Section 20 (1) of the Act, and so also for awarding him compensation under Section 19(8) of the Act. 5. In response to the complaint so filed by the applicant-respondent No.1 before the Commission (Complaint Case No. 102/2008), a reply came to be stated on 14.07.2008 with the submissions that the Department had been making all the efforts; and that by the letter dated 22.08.2007, the applicant was informed about want of complete particulars and was asked to state the details after inspecting the file but he failed to do so. While referring to the so-called several communications, the Department asserted that all the efforts were made to collect the information; and, for unavailability of the information, the applicant had been requested to contact the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Housing Board'). Along with the said reply, another so-called point-wise reply relating to the information sought for was also filed bearing date 14.07.2008 (Annex.6) that reads as under:- Jh prjflag esgrk] 2@192 dqM+h Hkxrkluh gkmflax cksMZ] tks/kiqj&342005 fo"k; %& lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr vkidk vkosnu fnukad 07-08-2007 lanHkZ %& bl dk;kZy; ds lela[;d i= fnukad 26-02-2008 fo"k;kUrxZr vkosnu ds dze esa lwpuk fcUnqokj fuEu izdkj iqu% izsf"kr gSa%& 1- bl fcUnq dh lwpuk dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha gS] vr% vki d`i;k jktLFkku vkoklu e.My ls lEidZ djsaA 2- bl fcUnq dh lwpuk dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha gS] vr% vki d`i;k jktLFkku vkoklu e.My ls lEidZ djsaA 3- bl ckcr ys[k gs fd vokMZ vuqeksnu i'pkr~ vfxze dk;Zokgh jktLFkku vkoklu e.My }kjk dh tkrh gSA 4- blds dze esa jktLFkku vkoklu e.My ds i= fnukad 04-05-2001 ,oa 06-01-2003 dh izfr iqu% izsf"kr gSA 5- blds dze esa ys[k gS fd vokMZ ij vfxze dk;Zokgh dk nkf;Ro jktLFkku vkoklu e.My }kjk vkoklh; vfHk;Urk [k.M+ f}rh;] tks/kiqj dks lkSaik x;k gSA " 6. The State Chief Information Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') has proceeded to deal with the matter relating to the complaint so filed by the applicant-respondent No.1 by the impugned order dated 01.09.2008 (Annex.7). The State Chief Information Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') has proceeded to deal with the matter relating to the complaint so filed by the applicant-respondent No.1 by the impugned order dated 01.09.2008 (Annex.7). After referring to the background facts and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 29.11.2007 (as reproduced hereinbefore), the learned Commissioner pointed out that the said complaint case remained pending for about six months but there had not been adequate response on the part of the Department and nobody even appeared for the Department on the date of hearing i.e., 18.08.2008. The Commissioner observed,- " ;g ifjokn yxHkx 6 ekg vk;ksx ds le{k lquokbZ esa jgk ftlesa 5 isaf'k;k gqbZA bu isf'k;ksa ij ;k rks izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk ;k le; c<+kus dk fuosnu ysdj dfu"B vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh mifLFkr gq,A vafre lquokbZ fnukad 18-08-2008 dks gqbZ ml fnu Hkh izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvkA vr% dsoy ifjoknh dks vafre :i ls lquk x;k ,oa ifjoknh us vius fuosnu esa fyf[kr uksV Hkh fn;k tks i=koyh esa 'kkfey fd;k x;kA " 7. The learned Commissioner found that the request as made by the applicant and the directions as issued in the first appeal were never attended to and considered at any stage nor efforts were made for supplying the requisite information; and agreed with the submissions of the applicant that the information as sought for by him was essentially to be replied by the State Government and there was no necessity of asking the Housing Board in that relation. The Commissioner found that the five points as stated in the application dated 07.08.2007 essentially related to the minutes or directions or the proceedings at the level of the State Government and not the Housing Board; and even the first Appellate Authority had remarked that the points were absolutely clear and omission to provide the information was entirely unjustified. The Commissioner found that the five points as stated in the application dated 07.08.2007 essentially related to the minutes or directions or the proceedings at the level of the State Government and not the Housing Board; and even the first Appellate Authority had remarked that the points were absolutely clear and omission to provide the information was entirely unjustified. The learned Commissioner said,- " ifjoknh dks lquus ds ckn ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k jsdMZ ds voyksdu ls ;g ckr iw.kZ :i ls Li"V gks tkrh gs fd ifjoknh ds izkFkZuk i= ,oa izFke vihy esa iznRr funsZ'kksa ij fdlh Lrj ij Hkh <+ax ls fopkj ugha gqvk ,oa u gh <+ax ls lwpuk iznku djus dh ps"Bk dh xbZA ifjoknh dk ;g dFku iw.kZ :i ls lR; gS fd mlus tks lwpuk pkgh Fkh mldk mRrj jkT; ljdkj ls gh visf{kr Fkk ,oa vkoklu e.My ls iwNus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha FkhA ifjoknh ds izkFkZuk i= fnukad 07-08-2007 esa iwNs x;s ikapksa fcUnqvksa ij fopkj fd;k tk, rks Li"V gks tkrk gS fd ftu feuV~l ;k funsZ'k i= ;k jkT; ljdkj Lrj ls dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds ckjs esa tks dqN iwNk Fkk ;k izfrfyfi;ka ekaxh xbZ Fkh os jkT; ljdkj ls gh lacaf/kr Fkh u fd vkoklu e.My lsA u flQZ izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= ij <+ax ls fopkj ugha fd;k x;k cfYd izFke vihy vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds mijksDr m/k`r iSjk 2 ls Hkh dksbZ izsj.kk ugha yh xbZA izFke vihy vf/kdkjh us Hkh mDr iSjk 2 esa rY[k fVIi.kh djrs gq, ;g fy[kk gS fd ekaxh xbZ lwpuk fcYdwy Li"V gS] blds ckotwn Hkh izkFkhZ dks i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ,oa Li"V tkudkjh nsus gsrq dgk tk jgk gSA mUgksaus Hkh ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd lHkh fcUnqvksa ij ekaxh xbZ lwpuk vR;Ur Li"V gksrs gq, Hkh foHkkx }kj lwpuk miyC/k ugha djk;k tkuk loZFkk vuqfpr gSA " 8. The learned Commissioner further observed that the Department did not wake up even after the order passed in appeal; and, in an entirely irresponsible manner, stuck to the suggestion that the applicant should seek the information from the Housing Board. The learned Commissioner further observed that the Department did not wake up even after the order passed in appeal; and, in an entirely irresponsible manner, stuck to the suggestion that the applicant should seek the information from the Housing Board. The learned Commissioner made rather scathing comments on the approach of the Department that the matter was never considered at responsible and mature level; that neither the letters were examined nor anything was considered for their reply; that whatever understood or proposed by the subordinates was approved in routine; and that nobody was bothered for the delay of one year. The Commissioner further expressed anguish that neither the matter before him was attended properly nor specific reasons were assigned for delay; and the matter was rather assumed concluded with cursory comment in the communication dated 14.07.2008 that intention of the Department was clear for having made incessant efforts to supply the information. The learned Commissioner commented,- " Li"V gS fd izFke vihy ds fu.kZ; ds ckn Hkh foHkkx esa dksbZ psruk ugha vkbZ ,o xSj ftEesnkjkuk <+ax ls vkoklu e.My ls tkudkjh ekaxus o izkFkhZ dks ogka tkdj lwpuk ysus dh ckr dks idM+s jgsA ;g Li"V :i ls bl ckr dk urhtk gS fd fdlh mPp Lrj (responsible and maturelevel) level ij u rks i= i<+s x;s ,oa u gh muds mRrj ij fopkj fd;k x;kA tgka tSlk uhps okyksa us le>k vFkok izLrkfor fd;k mlh ij :fVu esa vuqeksnu djrs pys vk,A bl izdj.k esa gqbZ ,d o"kZ dh nsjh dk Hkh fdlh dks eyky ugha gSA vr% u rks bl vk;ksx ds le{k foHkkx dh vksj ls dksbZ <+ax ls iSjoh gqbZ ,oa u gh /kkjk 19 o 20 ds uksfVl ij nsjh ds dksbZ dkj.k fy[ks x;s gSA foHkkx ds i= fnukad 14-07-2008 }kjk ek= ;g dgdj bfrJh fd xbZ gS fd lwpuk nsus gsrq vFkd iz;kl fd;s x;s gS ftuls foHkkx dh Hkkouk Li"V gSA " 9. The learned Commissioner, while pointing out that for the last two years, several such matters of unexplained and inordinate delay came up showing utter lack of responsibility and negligence; and that several of the matters were sent for fixing responsibilities and for departmental proceedings but the Departments were lacking in the requisite awareness and the approach had been of shunting the matters here and there or just to keep the issues pending, held in relation to the matter at hands that for entirely irresponsible dealing on the part of the Department, justified it was to impose penalty and to award compensation to the applicant. Resultantly, the Commission proceeded to award compensation to the applicant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and to impose penalty in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, the maximum as envisaged by the Act.10. The learned State Chief Information Commissioner also observed that though under Section 20 of the Act, it is the Public Information Officer who remains liable towards the penalty but in the present case, the delay had been at various levels in the Department and determination and fixing of responsibility at any particular level would not be possible for the Commission; and hence, considered it proper to impose the penalty on the Department while leaving it open for the Department to fix the responsibility and to recover the amount of penalty from the persons at fault or to penalise them otherwise. The amount of penalty and compensation was required to be deposited/paid within two months of the date of order.11. This writ petition seeking to challenge the aforesaid order dated 01.09.2008 has been filed on 18.03.2009 supported by the affidavits of the Resident Engineer, Division- II, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur as the Officer-incharge. Also placed on record is the communication dated 21.10.2008 as issued by the petitioner's Department to the Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board stating that the Government had decided to file the writ petition against the order dated 01.09.2008; and directing that the necessary proceedings be taken up immediately with information to the Department. Further placed on record is another note drawn by the Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur on 28.11.2008 requiring the Director (Law), Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur to file the writ petition immediately as per the decision of the Government while appointing the Resident Engineer, Division- II, Jodhpur as the Officer-incharge. Further placed on record is another note drawn by the Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur on 28.11.2008 requiring the Director (Law), Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur to file the writ petition immediately as per the decision of the Government while appointing the Resident Engineer, Division- II, Jodhpur as the Officer-incharge. This petition has, thereafter, been filed on 18.03.2009 while stating the particulars of the petitioner thus: "Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Urban Housing and Development, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur through Officer-in-charge Resident Engineer, Division II, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur." 12. It has been contended in the petition that the order as passed by the learned Commissioner remains entirely unjustified and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the Department has made genuine efforts to supply the desired information as would appear from the documents Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 but the learned Commissioner has discarded such evidence without any justification. According to the petitioner, the learned Commissioner has apparently proceeded on the opinion that since other Departments were indulging in delaying tactics, the petitioner too has committed the same offence without considering the fact that the petitioner's Department had genuinely tried to provide the information available with it. It has also been contended in the petition that when the applicant had been informed that the desired information was to be obtained from the Housing Board, it was his duty to have approached the Housing Board for such information; and once it was established that the desired information was not lying with it, the Department could not have been held liable to supply the same. It has repeatedly been asserted that the applicant ought to have contacted the Housing Board with whom lay the requisite information.13. It has also been suggested that the applicant had in fact approached the Housing Board for the requisite information that was indeed made available to him; and the second appeal filed by the applicant in that regard before the Commission, being appeal No.1340/2007, was decided on 29.11.2007 (Annex.10) while recording the fact that the Housing Board had supplied the requisite information.14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there had never been any ill-intention on the part of the petitioner's Department; that the desired information was attempted to be supplied and such part of information as was available with the Housing Board, was requested to be obtained therefrom. The learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the applicant had received the information from the Housing Board as would appear from the order dated 29.11.2007 (Annex.10) wherein the Commission itself was satisfied that the requisite information had been received by the applicant from the Housing Board and found no reason to impose any penalty or to award any compensation. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel submitted, imposition of penalty and awarding of compensation by the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel submitted that such facts relating to the order dated 29.11.2007 and that the information had already been supplied by the Housing Board were, of course, not pointed out to the State Commission but being of indisputable factual position, deserve to be taken into consideration and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.15. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition; and is rather unable to appreciate the approach of the petitioner and the Department represented by the petitioner.16. The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted to 'provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority' (vide the Preamble); and makes it obligatory for every public authority to provide information, unless excepted, within the time specified upon receiving the request. The true and effective operation of Act of 2005, made with the avowed object of promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities, could least be permitted to be scuttled by such public authorities with shunting of the applicants from desk to desk or office to office, as attempted in the instant case.17. The true and effective operation of Act of 2005, made with the avowed object of promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities, could least be permitted to be scuttled by such public authorities with shunting of the applicants from desk to desk or office to office, as attempted in the instant case.17. The pivotal submission in the present writ petition seeking to question the order imposing penalty and awarding compensation to the applicant for faults and defaults on the part of the Department has been that a part of the requisite information was lying with the Rajasthan Housing Board and hence, the applicant was rightly re-directed to the Housing Board; and it has also been suggested that the Housing Board had in fact supplied the information to the petitioner. Such submissions, essentially those of the typical escape, evade, and avoid approach, are even incorrect on facts apart from being untenable in law; and are of no substitute so far the responsibility of the petitioner's Department under the Act of 2005 is concerned.18. A bare look at the information as sought for by the applicant respondent No.1 in his request dated 07.08.2007 (Annex.1), relevant part whereof has been reproduced hereinbefore, makes it clear that he did not make the request in any ambiguous or uncertain terms; and rather, he had been clear and specific and gave out even the minute particulars relating to the desired information. The significant part of the matter remains that all the queries fundamentally related to the land acquisition proceedings i.e., regarding the award as made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the communication as issued by the Urban Development Department for implementation of the said award, the proceedings as and if taken by the Urban Development Department on the letter of the Housing Commissioner, the proceedings as adopted by the Urban Development Department for the purpose of implementing the award; the letter of the Housing Board on whose basis were issued the notifications dated 28.08.2001 and 18.01.2003; and as to who had been handed over the responsibility to proceed further in the matter after making of the award under the notification dated 18.01.2003. It sounds entirely unjustified and well neigh malafide when the Urban Development Department of the Government of Rajasthan suggests that anything in relation to the aforesaid points is required to be obtained from the Housing Board.19. It sounds entirely unjustified and well neigh malafide when the Urban Development Department of the Government of Rajasthan suggests that anything in relation to the aforesaid points is required to be obtained from the Housing Board.19. It is difficult to swallow that the concerned Department of the Government who had taken up the land acquisition proceedings would at all suggest that any information related with such acquisition proceeding was not available with it; and be obtained from any other person. When there had been land acquisition proceedings, every information related thereto ought to be available, in the very first place and primarily, with the concerned Department of the State Government rather than any other person, Board, Corporation or Authority; and for that matter, even if the acquisition proceedings are for the purpose of any particular Board or Corporation or Company, when the acquisition is made by the appropriate Government, it sounds rather unwell on the intentions of the concerned Department of Government when it would suggest that any information directly related with such proceedings in acquisition and implementation of the award be asked from such person or body for whose purpose, the acquisition was made.20. The learned Commission has been justified in observing that the request as made by the respondent No.1 was precisely related to the State Government only; and there was no reason or justification that for the purpose of the desired information or any part thereof, the applicant was sought to be re-directed to the Housing Board.21. Under the Act of 2005, an approach on the part of any Department to shunt and shuttle the matter cannot be appreciated; and rather deserves to be deprecated. The scathing comments as made by the State Commission in the present case cannot be said to be unwarranted and appear to be of the least minimum in relation to the sheer apathetic and irresponsible approach on the part of the petitioner's Department.22. It is wrong to suggest that the learned Commissioner has passed the order more for the reasons of delay and default on the part of other Departments. It is wrong to suggest that the learned Commissioner has passed the order more for the reasons of delay and default on the part of other Departments. Of course, the learned Commissioner has made certain general comments of having repeatedly come across the same kind of matters reflecting on the apathetic and unconcerned attitude of the Departments but then, in the sweep of the powers available with it and the tasks entrusted to it under the Act of 2005, including those of monitoring and reporting (vide Section 25), the Commission is not expected to remain a mute spectator of such omissions that tend to whittle down the effectiveness of the enactment; and the comments cannot be said to be altogether misplaced. However, so far the case at hand is concerned, the learned Commissioner has dealt with the same on its merits and has passed the impugned order after noticing inexplicable defaults on the part of the petitioner's Department. Noticeable it is that in the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act of 2005, the Commission is empowered to impose penalty if it would find omission to furnish information without any reasonable cause; and as per second proviso to Section 20, the burden of proving that he had acted reasonably and diligently is on the concerned Information Officer. What to say of discharging such burden, as noticed, the petitioner's Department did not even take care to attend properly the proceedings before the Commission. The impugned order does not call for any interference.23. This Court cannot help further commenting on the queer stance of the petitioner that on one hand, when choosing to file this baseless writ petition, the petitioner would have appointed as Officer-incharge none other than a Resident Engineer of Rajasthan Housing Board; and on the other hand, it would be suggested in the petition that the petitioner has no control over the Housing Board and hence, the applicant ought to have approached the Housing Board when he was informed that the desired information was available with the said Board. It is rather strange that though this writ petition has been filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government in its Urban Development Department but then, it is the Resident Engineer of the Housing Board who is the Officer-incharge of this case and yet, the averments are taken as if the petitioner's Department and the Housing Board are so exclusive that the duty of the petitioner was over once a suggestion was made that the applicant should bother himself with the Board. The pretentious posture as adopted by the petitioner sounds rather ill for the system of governance the Right to Information Act, 2005 aims at. If at all it be assumed for the sake of arguments that any information or part thereof had been with the Housing Board, it is but apparent that for the present matter, the Housing Board is neither detached from the petitioner's Department nor could be said to be a body so exclusive and independent that the petitioner's Department could not have obtained such information from the said Board and supplied it to the applicant. Viewed from any angle, there does not appear any justification that the petitioner's Department omitted to supply the requisite information.24. The suggestion as made in this writ petition that the Housing Board had already supplied the information to the applicant is again an incorrect projection of the true situation with distortion of the facts and with concealment of material facts. It is noticed from the copy of the application as moved to the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Housing Board, Jodhpur on 07.08.2007 (Annex.8) that the applicant had asked for such information from the Housing Board that was essentially related with the said Board. It is apparent from the copies of the application as moved to the petitioner's Department (Annex.1) and to the Housing Board (Annex.8) that both the applications were moved simultaneously i.e., on 07.08.2007. The applicant had been precise, clear, and specific in his requests and consciously requested for the information from the Housing Board particularly in relation to the matters or points that would have been of their concern. Mere supplying of such information by the Housing Board, albeit belatedly, cannot in any case, be considered relevant so far the duties and responsibilities of the Urban Development Department are concerned.25. Mere supplying of such information by the Housing Board, albeit belatedly, cannot in any case, be considered relevant so far the duties and responsibilities of the Urban Development Department are concerned.25. The fact that the information as requested under the application dated 07.08.2007 was not supplied within the specified time is not in dispute. Even on 29.11.2007, the Appellate Authority directed that the information be supplied within two weeks. However, petitioner's Department proceeded as if the proceedings under the Right to Information Act could be ignored with impunity. Such an approach was again reflected in the cursory suggestions made before the Commission on 14.07.2008 (vide Annexure-6); and then, nobody even cared to appear before the Commission on the date of hearing, as has been observed in the order impugned. The stance, stand, and the approach on the part of the petitioner's Department leave much to be desired.26. In the given state of affairs and for an entirely irresponsible approach on the part of the petitioner's Department, the Commission cannot be said to have committed any illegality or irregularity in imposing the penalty to the maximum and awarding compensation to the applicant. The order as passed by the Commission on 01.09.2008 in the present case has total approval of this Court.27. It is noticed that the Commission has consciously imposed the penalty on the Department rather than any particular person and has extended liberty to the Department to fix the responsibility, to recover the amount from person/s at fault, and to take suitable disciplinary action. Even while the petitioner's Department is under obligation to pay/deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 01.09.2008, as the matter relates to public money, the process as contemplated by the said order of fixing responsibility, of recovering the amount, and of disciplinary action ought to be taken up by the petitioner immediately and the State Information Commission should be informed of the outcome at the earliest.28. This writ petition, being totally bereft of substance, does not merit admission and is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******