ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed setting aside the order dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure-15) passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand in Appeal No. 955 of 2013, whereby the office of the petitioner has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent no.2 since no information on certain point was furnished to him. 2. The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the respondent no.2 had sought some information with respect to Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust, relating to Khata No.1185, Plot Nos.7678, 7679, 7680, 7681, 7682 of Tilaiya Mouza. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Collector, the In-charge, General Section, Koderma vide letter no.376 dated 23.05.2013 directed the petitioner to provide required information to the respondent no.2. The Chainman, Circle Office Koderma showed his inability to furnish information, since the documents pertained to the year 1982. The petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the Deputy Collector, In-charge General Section, Koderma. The respondent no.2 filed first appeal on 27.06.2013 alleging that the information provided to him is incomplete and unsatisfactory. The Additional Collector, Koderma-cum-First Appellate Authority sent a letter to the petitioner, stating therein that the respondent no.2 was not satisfied with the information furnished to him. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter no.551 dated 23.07.2013 sent a report to the Additional Collector, Koderma with regard to the matter and thereafter, the 1st appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 was disposed of. The respondent no.2 then filed 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission, Jharkhand being Appeal No.955 of 2013 whereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter no.177 dated 15.03.2014 submitted his reply to the show cause notice, stating that the information regarding Khata No.1185 of Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust could not be retrieved, since the documents are too old. The petitioner further stated that he took all viable efforts to retrieve the said documents but failed. The petitioner also affirmed an affidavit before the Notary Public, Koderma on 17.09.2014, stating that the information sought by Mr. Moinuddin Warsi (respondent no.2), pertaining to Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust’s Khata No.1185 and its Jamabandi and Mutation Case No.269 of 1982 is too old and after expiry of 32 years it is not possible to produce the said documents. The petitioner also affirmed an affidavit before the Notary Public, Koderma on 17.09.2014, stating that the information sought by Mr. Moinuddin Warsi (respondent no.2), pertaining to Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust’s Khata No.1185 and its Jamabandi and Mutation Case No.269 of 1982 is too old and after expiry of 32 years it is not possible to produce the said documents. The Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand vide order dated 25.03.2015, however, observed that it is the duty of the concerned Officers and the Staff to keep the records in safe custody and if the records are not available or misplaced from the office, the person concerned must be punished. The Acting Chief Information Commissioner held that since no information was given to the appellant (respondent no.2 herein), he must be compensated under section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thus ordered the office of the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent no.2, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by the respondent no.2 was too old and the same could not be retrieved in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner and his subordinate staff and as such the petitioner should not have been penalized for no fault on his part. It is further submitted that the circular issued under the Act, 2005 clearly suggests that any documents should be secured for a period of twelve years for any correction of names in Khasra and Khatian and as such the petitioner was duty bound to secure the records only for a period 12 years. Since the information sought by the respondent no.2 was about 32 years old, the petitioner had no legal obligation to provide the same. It is further submitted that the responsibility of keeping any document is upon the person in-charge of the office and not upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that the show cause notice served to the petitioner was duly replied by the petitioner disclosing the true fact, however, the same was not appreciated by the respondent no.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 . 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that it is the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to properly maintain all the records of the Circle Office. Since he failed in the duty, he has to face the consequence. The respondent no.1 has not imposed fine upon the petitioner individually rather the same has been imposed against the office of the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The short question that falls for consideration of this court is as to whether the petitioner should have been penalized for non-furnishing the information which was not available in the office. 6. I have perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another (Supra.). In para 63 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 7. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the Public Information Officer is duty bound to provide only those information which are available and existing. It appears from the record that on receipt of the show cause notice of the respondent no.1, the petitioner duly replied the same with specific stand that the information sought by the respondent no.2 could not be furnished due to non-availability of the document in the office being too old. The respondent no.2 has failed to bring on record any material to show that the petitioner willingly or negligently did not provide information which was available in the office. The question of payment of compensation would arise only when the information is not provided to an applicant due to laches or fault of the public authority. Undisputedly, the information sought by the respondent no.2 was about 32 years old, which was not available in the office of the petitioner. Thus, in my considered view, the impugned order dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) does not appear to be justified and thus the same is quashed and set aside. 8. It is made clear that the present order is confined to the provisions of the Act, 2005 and the same does not absolve the concerned officers/officials from any administrative action in this regard. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 10. Consequently I.A No. 7289 of 2017 also stands disposed of.