JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3 learned S.C. (Mines)-II, appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand by making reference of the order dated 17th July, 2019 has submitted that the order passed by the Information Commission dated 06.12.2016, which is impugned in this writ petition, as under Annexure-18, has wrongly been passed by directing the Public Information Officer to make payment of the amount of compensation as provided under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act. 3. He further submits that the Information Commission ought to have taken into consideration the difference in between the effect of the implication of the provision of Section 19 (8) (b) and Section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act, since the same pertains to the provision of compensating the information seeker for the mental agony suffered while Section 20 (2) reflect about the deterrent provision by imposing penalty for non-compliance of the Right to Information Act by following the process stipulated, therein, and as such, the order dated 06.12.2016 is fit to be quashed and the remedy lies before the authority concerned for its appreciation. 4. Although a copy of the writ petition has not been served upon Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the Respondent-Information Commission, but he has put his appearance to represent the Information Commissioner and assisted the Court in the matter by taking aid of the provision of Section 19 (8) (b) as also Section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act. 5. This Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as also Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the Respondent-Information Commission and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition has examined the provision, as contained under Section 19 (8) (b) and Section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act. 6. 5. This Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as also Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the Respondent-Information Commission and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition has examined the provision, as contained under Section 19 (8) (b) and Section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act. 6. From the aforesaid provision, it is evident that Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act provides provision for compensating the information seeker for the mental agony suffered by the public authority and the public authority has been defined under Section 2 (h), while the provision of Section 20 (2) provides provision to impose penalty in terms of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-after following the principles of natural justice, as would appear from the impugned order, that the Information Commissioner while passing the order by taking the recourse of the provision of Section 19 (8) (b) of the Act, has directed the Public Information officer to compensate the Information seeker by making the payment to him to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. 7. Now the question, which is to be answered regarding the interpretation of Section 19 (8) (b) as also the difference in between Section 19 (8) (b) and Section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act. 8. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration afresh by the information seeker with respect to the issue, as has been referred, hereinabove, and therefore, the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 is quashed. 9. The matter is remitted before the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi for passing a fresh order in accordance with law by answering the issue within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.