Order Petitioner is now a retired Section Officer of Section-17 of the Department of Health and Medical Education, Government of Bihar. He has filed the present writ applications for quashing the order dated 11.3.2008 as well as order dated 28.5.2008 passed by Shri P N Narayanan, the Member, State Information Commission, Patna, in Information Case No. 3004/2007-08 and 5517/2007-08. By virtue of these orders penalty of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.19,250/- has been imposed upon the petitioner for not supplying the correct information in time demanded by the applicant Dr. (Smt) Sudha Sinha and Dr. Kedar Nath, respectively. 2. The impugned orders are Annexure-19 and 9 in CWJC No. 15664 of 2008 and CWJC No.16383 of 2008, respectively. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had supplied all the information which was sought for by Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Sinha and Dr. Kedar Nath. There was no occasion for the State Information Commission to impose a fine upon the petitioner. 4. Short facts are that an application dated 3.1.2007 as well as dated 5.10.2006 was filed before the Public Information Officer of the Department of Health. The details of the information sought by the applicants Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Sinha and Dr. Kedar Nath have been stated in para-4 of both the writ applications. It is his stand that whatever information ws available with him readily, was provided. However, information from other establishment and institutions was also required to be obtained. There was some delay in this process but ultimately the entire information, according to the petitioner, was made over to both the applicants. 5. The information seekers were however not satisfied. Therefore, applications were filed before the State Information Commission making the grievance against the conduct and dilly-dallying approach adopted by the petitioner. Notice came to be issued and even directions came to be passed from time to time. Two contradictory stands came to be taken by Dr. Sudha Sinha and Dr. Kedar Nath vis-à-vis the petitioner. The petitioner took a stand that all the information so desired has been furnished. However, it was pointed out before the Commission as to the inadequacy of the information or an effort on the part of the petitioner to hold back information. 6. It is in this context the orders contained in Anneuxre-19 and Annexure-9 came to be passed. 7. The petitioner took a stand that all the information so desired has been furnished. However, it was pointed out before the Commission as to the inadequacy of the information or an effort on the part of the petitioner to hold back information. 6. It is in this context the orders contained in Anneuxre-19 and Annexure-9 came to be passed. 7. The thrust of the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner is that the orders passed by the State Information Commission are per say arbitrary and illegal. They are in violation of the principles of natural justice. The orders are harsh and create a financial drain on the petitioner especially when he was not at fault and had supplied the information etc. etc. 8. The stand of the State Information Commission is that the orders in question have been passed because the Commission was well satisfied that the respondent information seekers were not provided full and complete information at any point of time. It has led to filing of a first appeal and then second appeal and despite repeated directions with regard to the information of final panel of 1990, the details of the vacancies of Assistant Professors in the year 1995 was only received . Even with regard to the list of Assistant Professors of Medical Colleges they did not receive any information as such. The Additional Director cum Public Information Officer, Health Department was ordered to be present along with Public Information Officer cum Section Officer (Section 17) i.e. the petitioner. During the course of hearing the information seekers pointed out to the Commission the inputs or information not provided despite clear directions to do issued from time to time. They were left with no option but to invoke the power under section 20(1) of the Act since no information was provided within the statutory period of 30 days. 9. The reading of Anneuxre-19 and Annexure-9 would clearly indicate that the information sought by the information seekers was seriously being resisted. Wrong or misleading information was sought to be passed on as sufficient compliance and the conduct of the petitioner was to frustrate the implementation of the provisions of the Act by not providing information which a citizen is allowed to beget from public authorities. 10. Wrong or misleading information was sought to be passed on as sufficient compliance and the conduct of the petitioner was to frustrate the implementation of the provisions of the Act by not providing information which a citizen is allowed to beget from public authorities. 10. The Court is not unmindful of the fact that there are series of litigations which are coming to the High Court from Health Department on matters of selection, appointments, postings, promotions etc. and it has emerged that on many occasions misleading or wrong facts are brought before the authorities or even to the Court to beget a kind of order. Obviously the information seekers seem to be one of those persons who wanted to find out the details from the record available with respondent authorities of the State. If the same was being resisted or only misleading information was being supplied as sufficient compliance, then the Information Commission was absolutely correct in taking a firm stand and imposing a penalty on the Public Information Officer, i.e. the petitioner. The Court cannot overlook the fact that only when such strong orders come to be passed that informations finally come to be given. The stand of the petitioner that the information had already been furnished earlier has been negated by the Information Commissioner. The details of which are very much reflected in the orders impugned. 11. The Court comes to a considered opinion that despite enactment being in place for the last six years the mind set of the babus have not changed. Effort is being made by the powers that be to frustrate the objective of the Act by one manner or the other. Since it is a ‘sunshine Act’ it alone has the capacity to bring about certain drastic changes in the way decisions are made or taken in the name of the people. It is the obligation and the duty of the Court, if it is prima facie satisfied to uphold the directive or decisions or the Information Commission if the explanations offered by the persons like of petitioner is only a fig leaf to protect his honour, when consequence comes to visit them. 12. It is the obligation and the duty of the Court, if it is prima facie satisfied to uphold the directive or decisions or the Information Commission if the explanations offered by the persons like of petitioner is only a fig leaf to protect his honour, when consequence comes to visit them. 12. In totality the Court is not satisfied that it is one of those cases where petitioner has come clean and provided information out of his own sweet will within time frame and directive issued by the Information Commission from time to time. The imposition of fine was the only answer to such deviant or recalcitrant employees or officers of the State. 13. Writ applications have no merit. They are dismissed.