JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2-State Information Commission. 2. Uttar Pradesh State Warehouse Corporation, the petitioner herein, has challenged the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the respondent No.2-State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh passed in Appeal No. S-1-106(C)/07 contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner to dispose off the matter of respondent No.1-Sri Rajnath Tripathi within a month, failing which, proceedings with regard to imposition of punishment against the petitioner would be taken. 3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant facts for determination of the present petition are that vide letter dated 16.11.2006, respondent No.1-Sri Rajnath Tripathi sought an information with regard to the payment of the Transfer Allowance Bill of June, 2002, which was submitted by him on 20.3.2003, under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "2005 Act"). In pursuance to the letter of the respondent No.1 dated 16.11.2016, the Public Information Officer inquired the matter and Mr. P.R. Gautam, General Manager, Finance was appointed as Inquiry Officer for internal inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, after due inquiry, has submitted its report dated 30.5.2007, stating therein that the respondent No.1 was not transferred from Deoria to Orai, whereas at the relevant time, he was placed under suspension and attached with the Regional Office at Orai, therefore, he cannot claim Transfer Allowance from Deoria to Orai and the Transfer Allowance Bill was found to be forged. 4. According to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has also stated in the inquiry report that the employee, who was attached from any other office during the suspension period is only entitled for the Transfer Allowance for the particular journey from his residence to the place, where the enquiry is held, therefore, the respondent No.1 is only entitled to get Transfer Allowance for the journey performed by him for the regional office at Orai 5. It has been averred in the petition that respondent No.1 filed an appeal to the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Warehouse Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"), mentioning therein that the Public Information Officer has not given the information to him as sought for under the 2005 Act vide letters dated 16.11.2006 and 21.11.2006. It has been averred in the petition that respondent No.1 filed an appeal to the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Warehouse Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"), mentioning therein that the Public Information Officer has not given the information to him as sought for under the 2005 Act vide letters dated 16.11.2006 and 21.11.2006. On receipt of the letter of the respondent No.1, the appellate authority/Managing Director of the Corporation, vide letter dated 27.2.2007, informed the respondent No.1 that the information as required by him had already been furnished and now no information is remained to be furnished. 6. Not satisfied with the reply of the appellate authority/Managing Director of the Corporation, the respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal before the Information Commissioner, which was registered as Appeal No. S-1-106 (C) of 2007, in which, the Commission, vide order dated 4.5.2007, issued notice to the Corporation (petitioner herein) by fixing 11.5.2007 for hearing and further directed to appear before the Commission along with the reply and other relevant documents. 7. According to the petitioner, notice, which was issued by the Commission vide order dated 4.5.2007, was received in the office of the Corporation (petitioner herein) on 14.5.2007 i.e. after expiry of the dated fixed by the Commission, therefore, the Commission has postponed the proceeding on 11.5.2007 and fixed 1.6.2007 as the date for hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his reply to the appeal on 1.6.2007, stating therein that with regard to departmental appeal preferred against the order dated 2.5.2005, the meeting was held on 15.11.2006 and the decision so taken in the meeting was informed to the respondent No.1. As regard point no.2 pertaining to the pending allowance bill amounting to Rs.11,069.32 of June, 2002, office order dated 26.3.2002 has already been issued stating therein that respondent No.1 was placed under suspension and attached with Regional Office at Orai, therefore, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to receive the Traveling Allowance against the Bill submitted by him; and in respect to third information relating to journey performed in between 4.9.200 to 2.12.2000 and 12.4.2001 to 13.4.2001, a Cheque bearing No. 602968 dated 3.4.2007 has already been issued to the respondent No.1. 8. 8. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Commission, the respondent No.1 not only requested to provide point-wise information but also requested to order for payment, which is not permissible under the provisions of 2005 Act. However, the respondent No.2-Commission, vide order dated 1.6.2007, directed the petitioner to decide the matter of the respondent No.1 within a month and inform the Commission, otherwise, the punitive action would be taken. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by means of the present writ petition. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of Section 7 (1) read with Section 20 (2) of the 2005 Act, the Commission is only empowered to impose penalty and recommend to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the officer, who has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act but there is no provision in 2005 Act, which empowers the Commission to direct the authorities to decide the matter on merit or appear before him personally. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Commission Shri Shikhar Anand has submitted that vide order dated 4.7.2007, this Court has stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 1.6.2007, therefore, in compliance of the order dated 4.7.2007, no further proceedings were taken. He also informs that during shifting of the Commission's office from Indira Bhawan to the present office at Vibhuti Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow, the record of Appeal No. S-1/106/C/2007 misplaced and despite intensive searched, it could not be traced. However, search for the said appeal is still going on. 11. We have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Commission. 12. The question which falls for adjudication in the present case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the 2005 Act in directing disclosure of information and directing to decide the pending matters of the respondent no.1 at the earliest. 13. 12. The question which falls for adjudication in the present case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the 2005 Act in directing disclosure of information and directing to decide the pending matters of the respondent no.1 at the earliest. 13. Section 18 of the 2005 Act to the extent it is relevant provides that it shall be the duty of the Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who has refused to access any information requested under the Act or who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under the Act. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Commission to decide such a complaint on merit instead of simply directing the CPIO to provide information which the complainant had sought. If the Commission finds that the CPIO had without reasonable cause refused to receive an application for information or had not furnished information within the prescribed time or had given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, it is required to impose prescribed penalty upon such a CPIO/SPIO, as the case may be. In the cases covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the Commission is also required to recommend disciplinary action against the concerned CPIO or SPIO, under the service rules applicable to him. 14. Section 19 of the 2005 Act, on the other hand, provides for a first appeal to the First Appellate Authority under Sub-section (1) and a Second Appeal to the Commission under Sub-section (3) of the aforesaid Section. Sub-section (8) of Section 19 of the Act deals with the power of the Commission with respect to the appeals preferred in terms of Sub-section (3) of the said Section and reads as under:- "8. Sub-section (8) of Section 19 of the Act deals with the power of the Commission with respect to the appeals preferred in terms of Sub-section (3) of the said Section and reads as under:- "8. In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,- (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including- (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 4; (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d) reject the application." 15. The scope of the powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the 2005 Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Central Information Commissioner Vs. State of Manipur : 2012 (286) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.). In this case, appellant No.2 filed an application dated 9.2.2007 seeking certain information from the State Information Officer. Since no response was received, he preferred a complaint before the State Chief Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act. The said State Chief Information Commissioner directed respondent No.2 before the Apex Court to furnish the information which appellant No.2 had sought for. The aforesaid direction of the State Chief Information Commissioner was challenged by the State by way of writ petition. The appellant No.2 had filed yet another complaint before the Chief Information Commissioner which also had met a similar fate at the hands of the State Chief Information Commissioner. A learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner. 16. The appellant No.2 had filed yet another complaint before the Chief Information Commissioner which also had met a similar fate at the hands of the State Chief Information Commissioner. A learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner. 16. Being aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which held that the Commissioner had no power to direct the respondent to furnish information since such a power could be exercised only in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The Commissioner was accordingly directed to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. 17. Not being satisfied by the order passed by the Division Bench, the Chief Information Commissioner preferred an appeal by Special Leave. Rejecting the appeal filed by the Commissioner, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:- "...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant. 29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18 (1). Under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18 (1) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act (Section 18 (1) (b) or has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act (Section 18 (1) (e)) or has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within time limits specified under the Act (Section 18 (1) (c). We are not concerned with provision of Section 18 (1) (a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with the residuary provision under Section 18 (1)(f) of the Act. We are not concerned with provision of Section 18 (1) (a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with the residuary provision under Section 18 (1)(f) of the Act. Under Section 18 (3) of the Act the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, while inquiring into any matter in this Section has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit in respect of certain matters specified in Section 18 (3) (a) to (f). Under Section 18 (4) which is a non-obstante clause, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may examine any record to which the Act applies and which is under the control of the public authority and such records cannot be withheld from it on any ground. 30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX 37. We are of the view that Section 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other. 38. It may be that sometime in statute words are used by way of abundant caution. The same is not the position here. Here a completely different procedure has been enacted under Section 19. If the interpretation advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is accepted in that case Section 19 will become unworkable and especially Section 19 (8) will be rendered a surplusage. Such an interpretation is totally opposed to the fundamental canons of construction. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose and Anr. Vs. Arbinda Bose and Anr.: AIR 1952 SC 369 . Such an interpretation is totally opposed to the fundamental canons of construction. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose and Anr. Vs. Arbinda Bose and Anr.: AIR 1952 SC 369 . At page 377 of the report Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri had laid down: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX 42. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19of the Act, when compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of the person who has been refused the information he has sought. Section 19 (5), in this connection, may be referred to. Section 19 (5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the information officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 is a time bound one but no limit is prescribed under Section 48. So out of the two procedures, between Section 18 and Section 19, the one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person who has been denied access to information." 18. Apart from above, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, the Commission is empowered to impose penalty against whom, who has denied to take the application for information or has not given the information according to sub section (1) of Section 7 of the Act or denied to give the information deliberately or intentionally wrong and incomplete information or cause any hindrance to give the information. As per provisions of sub section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the Commission can recommend for imitation of disciplinary proceedings under the relevant service rules against the Public Information Officer. 19. Thus it is crystal clear that the Commission is only empowered to impose penalty and recommend for initiate of disciplinary proceedings against the Officer, who failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act but there is no provision in the Act, which empowers the Commission to direct the authorities to decide the matter within the time frame prescribed by it. 20. For the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned order dated 01.06.2007 passed by the State Information Commission is hereby set aside. 20. For the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned order dated 01.06.2007 passed by the State Information Commission is hereby set aside. The Commission is directed to trace out the record of Appeal No. SI 106 (C)/07 and if it is not possible to trace out the same, it shall be reconstituted in accordance with law and thereafter, dispose of the aforesaid appeal of the respondent No.1 within four months from today, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act. 21. Subject to aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. "It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being in apposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute."