JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral):- The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Tejinder Singh (respondent No.2) claiming himself to be Correspondent, moved an application dated 22.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) to the Public Information Officer (for brevity,”PIO”), office of District Transport Officer, Kapurthala and sought the information mentioned therein, invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) 2. The petitioner Daljit Kaur was working as a District Transport Officer. She claimed that in pursuance of the application (Annexure P-1), she had personally supplied the information to respondent No.2; mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 well within time vide memo. Bearing No.4746 dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) through U.P.C. (Annexure P-3). According to the petitioner, that since the information pertaining to 943 driving licences mentioned at serial No.9 consist of 440 pages, so respondent No.2 was asked to submit the requisite fees, so that rest of the information could be supplied to him by way of Photostat copy of all the relevant pages. 3. The case of the petitioner further proceeds that instead of acknowledging the letter (Annexure P-2) and depositing the requisite fees for supply of 440 pages, the respondent No.2 straightway moved an application dated 4.3.2009, before the State Information Commission (for brevity,’the SIC”) for taking action for non-supplying the requisite information, without disclosing the fact that he has already received the information at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 mentioned in his application (Annexure P-1) and the reason of non-deposit of fees for supplying the remaining information at serial No. 9. The SIC issued the notice which was neither served upon her nor she authorized Bhajan Singh, Senior Assistant or any other person, from the office, to attend the proceedings on her behalf. The proceedings were never in her knowledge as she was under the impression that necessary information has already been supplied to respondent No.2. In this manner, the SIC illegally imposed a penalty of ‘ 250/- per day, total ‘ 25000/- on the petitioner, failing which the Secretary, Transport Department was directed to recover the amount of penalty from her pay and also ordered to take disciplinary action against her by means of impugned order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-4). 4. In this manner, the SIC illegally imposed a penalty of ‘ 250/- per day, total ‘ 25000/- on the petitioner, failing which the Secretary, Transport Department was directed to recover the amount of penalty from her pay and also ordered to take disciplinary action against her by means of impugned order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-4). 4. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the impugned order, she filed a review petition (Annexure P-5) intimating the conduct of respondent No.2 by virtue of complaint (Annexure P-6) and application (Annexure P-7) for placing on record the copies of some documents. The review petition filed by her was dismissed being not maintainable by SIC in view of order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-8). 5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexure P-4) and (Annexure P-8), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in all, the petitioner claimed that she has already supplied the information to respondent No.2 through letter (Annexure P-2) under Postal Certificate (Annexure P-3) within a stipulated period but the SIC has illegally passed an adverse order against her imposing the penalty and to take appropriate departmental action, without any service on her or giving any opportunity of being heard. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned orders (Annexure P-4) and (Annexure P-8) in the manner indicated herein above. 7. The respondent No.2 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the reply inter alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the petition and objection of concealment of facts. The contesting respondent has denied the receipt of information and letter (Annexure P-2) and U.P.C. (Annexure P-3) were stated to have been subsequently created by her. It was claimed that Bhajan Singh, Senior Assistant appeared on her behalf and made the statement. The petitioner was stated to have created a false story in order to save her skin. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 8. The petitioner was stated to have created a false story in order to save her skin. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter. To my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted. 9. What is not disputed here is that the contesting respondent No.2 moved an application dated 22.1.2009(Annexure P-1) and sought the indicated informations. The petitioner claimed that she has already supplied the information at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 mentioned in the application through the medium of letter bearing memo. No.4746 dated 13.2.2009(Annexure P-2) by virtue of UPC (Annexure P-3). The perusal of para No.9 of letter (Annexure P-2) would reveal that information record sought with regard to total 943 regular driving licences issued from the month of December, 2008 to 16.1.2009, contained 440 pages and the contesting respondent was asked to deposit the requisite fees/expenses of Photostat copies of 440 pages of the applications and their driving licences. Instead of depositing the requisite fees, he directly filed a petition/complaint, on which SIC passed the impugned order (Annexure P-4). The review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by means of impugned order (Annexure P-8). The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the SIC, while passing the impugned order, was that one Bhajan Singh, Senior Assistant was present and no information was provided to the complainant. 10. Here to me, the SIC slipped into legal error in this respect. Petitioner has specifically pleaded that neither she received any notice nor authorized any Bhajan Singh or any other person to make the statement before the SIC. No cogent evidence is forthcoming on record that any such notice was issued or petitioner was duly served or she has authorized any person to appear on her behalf before the SIC. 11. Petitioner has specifically pleaded that neither she received any notice nor authorized any Bhajan Singh or any other person to make the statement before the SIC. No cogent evidence is forthcoming on record that any such notice was issued or petitioner was duly served or she has authorized any person to appear on her behalf before the SIC. 11. As is evident from the record that the petitioner has already supplied the information to respondent No.2 vide letter (Annexure P-2) with regard to the information mentioned at item Nos.1 to 8, while he was asked to deposit the requisite fees for supplying information of 943 regular driving licences, containing 440 pages by virtue of UPC(Annexure P-3). But the same appears to have not been brought to the notice of SIC and this omission culminated in passing the adverse order (Annexure P-4) against the petitioner. That too without issuing her any notice or providing opportunity of being heard and without considering the relevant evidence, i.e., letter Annexure P-2 and U.P.C. (Annexure P-3). So much so, the revision petition filed by her was dismissed on technical ground as well vide impugned order (Annexure P-8). Therefore, to my mind, the impugned orders are not only against the statutory provisions of the Act but against the principles of natural justice as well and cannot legally be sustained. To me, it would be in the interest of justice and justice would be sub served, if the entire matter is remanded back to the SIC after setting aside the impugned orders (Annexure P-4) and (Annexure P-8) in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing, the writ petition is accepted, impugned orders(Annexure P-4) and (Annexure P-8) are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to SIC to decide the matter afresh in the light of the aforesaid observation, after issue of proper notice and providing an adequate opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the SIC on 4.3.2011 for further hearing. -----------0.K.B.0------------