JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J.- Heard Mr. P. Wagle, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The above petition seeks to inter alia quash and set aside an order passed by respondent No.1 imposing fine of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioner. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that respondent No.4 filed an application for inspection of the file of M/s Ramesh Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., on 20.03.2006 before the a petitioner who was the then Member Secretary of the GCZMA. The inspection was carried out by the said respondent No.4 but thereafter, on 28.03.2006 he filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 asking for the certified copies of 13 documents. The copies thereof came to be issued by the petitioner on 09.05.2006. On 21.09.2006, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) before the respondent No.2 herein. As no reply came forward the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the said commission under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act and an interim order came to be passed on 07.12.2006 by the said commission inter alia issuing show cause notice to the petitioner herein. On 01.02.2007, the respondent No.1 called for some records from the concerned department and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 11.04.2007, the petitioner was directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the ground that the petitioner had given some misleading information to respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the above Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the information which was sought by respondent No. 4 would come within the meaning of information under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act. The learned counsel further pointed out that the alleged information was in the nature of clarification which could not be issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that in any event, the documents which were sought by respondent No.4 were not available in the file. The learned counsel further pointed out that the alleged information was in the nature of clarification which could not be issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that in any event, the documents which were sought by respondent No.4 were not available in the file. The learned counsel thereafter pointed out that respondent No. 1 has exceeded its jurisdiction to ascertain whether the petitioner who was the Member Secretary at the relevant time had powers to issue licence for revision of the plan issued in the name of the said hotel project. The learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 1/commission had no jurisdiction to examine the powers of the petitioner in issuing such permission and as such, the question of imposing fine is totally misplaced. The learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the provisions of the Right to Information Act and inter alia pointed out that as no information has been directed to be furnished to respondent No.4, the question of imposing fine of Rs. 5000/-is totally without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submits that there was no misleading of information by the petitioner and as such the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 imposing penalty/fine on the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. M. Salkar. learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has pointed out that respondent No. 1 has exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the correctness or otherwise of the authority of the Member Secretary in permitting the revision of the plan in favour of the said hotel. The learned Government Advocate further submits that as there was a specific query put by the respondent No. 4 a as to whether the revision of the plan in favour of the said hotel was issued by GCZMA or Member Secretary, the conclusion/interference drawn by the respondent No.1 to the effect that there was misleading of information is totally erroneous. The learned counsel further pointed out that respondent No. 1 has assumed the manner in which some information ought to be granted and as such has erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner has furnished misleading information. 6. Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has supported the impugned order. The learned counsel further pointed out that respondent No. 1 has assumed the manner in which some information ought to be granted and as such has erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner has furnished misleading information. 6. Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has supported the impugned order. The learned counsel further pointed out that though otherwise the commission is not entitled to go into the validity of the powers of the petitioner in revising the plan, nevertheless, in the present case, as the commission has found that the petitioner was giving misleading information to the commission as well as respondent No.4, such exercise was permissible. The learned counsel further pointed out that the commission was forced to call for the records from the department to ascertain whether the information given by the petitioner was justified in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order as well as the correspondence addressed by respondent No.4 and pointed out that the petitioner has deliberately and mala fidely refused to give correct information and only mislead respondent No.4. The learned counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and I have also gone through the records. Taking into consideration the matter in controversy, the only aspect to be considered at this stage was whether the respondent No. 1 has exercised its jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act while passing the impugned order. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act provides thus : "20. Taking into consideration the matter in controversy, the only aspect to be considered at this stage was whether the respondent No. 1 has exercised its jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act while passing the impugned order. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act provides thus : "20. Penalties.-(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or mala fidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty- five thousand a rupees : Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him : Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub- section (1) of Section 7 or mala fidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him." 8. On plain reading of the said provisions, if the commission finds that any misleading information has been furnished, it is incumbent upon the authority to direct that the correct information be furnished to the person seeking such information and direct the payment of penalty until such information was furnished. In the present case, while passing the impugned order there is no consequential order passed by the commission directing the petitioner to furnish any d information. In such circumstances, the commission was not justified to impose a fine of Rs. 5000/- without first directing to furnish such information. Failure to do so itself vitiate the impugned order and the commission would have to consider issuing a show cause notice a fresh in accordance with law to the petitioner with that regard. 9. Considering the view proposed to be taken. I will not proceed to consider the merits of the rival contentions as advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. In case, the commission decides to proceed with the show cause notice, all contentions of the parties with that regard are kept open. 10. Subject to the above, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).