ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 15.05.2008 in Appeal Case No. 514/2007, the Public Information Officer, Ranchi University, has approached this Court. 2. The respondent No.2 submitted an application on 04.12.2006 seeking certain informations. The petitioner asserts that informations were supplied on 11.04.2007 through Registered Post bearing No. RL4207 dated 13.04.2007. However, respondent no.2 preferred an appeal vide Appeal Case No. 514/2007 on 26.03.2007. In the said proceeding, the petitioner appeared and asserted that in so far as, the copy of appointment letter dated 31.10.1973 of Shri K.N.Dubey is concerned, the same has been furnished to respondent No.2 however, in so far as, the file noting of the competent authority relating to the order contained in memo dated 31.10.1973 of the said K.N.Dueby is concerned, the same was not available in the University’s record. The petitioner is aggrieved by award of penalty of Rs.15,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent no.2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before recording a finding that there was intentional delay on the part of the Public Information Officer in providing information to respondent no.2 and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the point of award of penalty and compensation, the impugned order dated 15.05.2008 has been passed, which cannot be sustained in law. It has been submitted that without recording a finding that the plea taken by the petitioner that the original record of file noting of the competent authority regarding appointment of the said K.N.Dubey is not available in the record is false, the aforesaid order of penalty and compensation to respondent no.2 should not have been passed by the respondent Information Commission. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the proceeding in Appeal Case No. 514/2007 would disclose that the petitioner took false plea and tried to mislead the Commission. On the one hand, a plea has been taken that the original record pertaining to nothings of the competent authority is not available and on the other hand, a copy of the appointment letter dated 31.10.1973 has been provided to the respondent no.2. The said fact itself would establish the falsity of defence taken by the petitioner. On the one hand, a plea has been taken that the original record pertaining to nothings of the competent authority is not available and on the other hand, a copy of the appointment letter dated 31.10.1973 has been provided to the respondent no.2. The said fact itself would establish the falsity of defence taken by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner was granted as many as 10 opportunities by the Commission however, he did not provide the correct information and caused harassment to respondent no.2 and therefore, the Chief Information Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent no.2. The learned counsel refers to Regulation 21 of the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 to support the impugned order dated 15.05.2008. 5. From the materials brought on record, it is not in dispute that a copy of notification dated 31.10.1973 has been provided to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 has himself produced a copy of the said notification along with the counter affidavit filed on his behalf. The contention that if the file containing the note sheet of the competent authority is not available, how a copy of the notification dated 31.10.1973 has been made available, is misconceived. I find that it is not the case pleaded by respondent no.2 that the notification dated 31.10.1973 can be found only in the file containing note sheet. The notification dated 31.10.1973 and the decision taken by the competent authority are two different processes and therefore, it is not unbelievable that a copy of notification dated 31.10.1973 could have been produced by the petitioner. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides imposition of penalty by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, in case where the Information Commission is of the opinion that the Public Information Officer, “without any reasonable cause”, has refused to provide information to the applicant. The expression “without any reasonable cause” is of considerable significance. The provision under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 itself recognizes a case in which informations sought may not be furnished or may be furnished after some delay. The petitioner has taken a plea that the record containing note sheet of the competent authority is about 35 years old and the same is not available. The provision under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 itself recognizes a case in which informations sought may not be furnished or may be furnished after some delay. The petitioner has taken a plea that the record containing note sheet of the competent authority is about 35 years old and the same is not available. From the impugned order dated 15.05.2008, it does not appear that respondent no.2 produced any material to controvert the stand taken by the petitioner. The Information Commission has also not recorded that the defence raised by the petitioner is false. I am of the opinion that before imposition of award under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is mandatory to issue notice to the Public Information Officer on the question of award of penalty under Section 20. I further find that without recording a finding on the issue of mental torture, agony and harassment to respondent no.2, the Information Commission has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent no.2. The procedure adopted by the respondent Information Commission is unknown to the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The respondent Information Commission has passed the impugned order dated 15.05.2008 ignoring the mandate of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It also does not appear that respondent no.2 sought award of compensation for delay in providing information and harassment caused to him. It is a matter of record that respondent no.2 did not file any application with a computation chart seeking award of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 15.05.2008 is quashed.