JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand State Information Commission and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.2, learned counsel for respondent no.2-information seeker. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 12.02.2015 passed in Appeal No. 2210 of 2011 by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby, penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. 3. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Public Information Officer of Garhwa in the Forest Department. He further submits that respondent no.2 (information seeker) has sought certain information by filing an application dated 07.07.2012. He further submits that information provided to the information seeker was communicated to the Chief Information Commissioner vide letter dated 11.01.2014, which is at Annexure-2 to this writ petition. He further submits that when the first appeal filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 was heard before the authority concerned, the petitioner could not appear as on that date Bandh was called by certain underground organization. He further submits that thereafter the information seeker filed second appeal where the petitioner appeared, but without considering the fact that information has already been provided to the information seeker, impugned order has been passed, whereby, penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. He further submits that impugned order is illegal and not sustainable as information has already been provided to information seeker. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Information Commission submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order because the application has been made by respondent no.2 in the year 2011, whereas, by way of Annexure-9 the said information was given in the year 2015. He further submits that even in the second appeal, show-cause reply has not been filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed on 12.02.2015, whereas, the petitioner has given reply of show-cause on 04.07.2015 (Annexure-9) i.e. much after the impugned order has been passed by the authority concerned. By way of referring Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 , he submits that time is provided in that Section as to within what time information has to be provided. By way of referring Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 , he submits that time is provided in that Section as to within what time information has to be provided. He further submits that in view of Section 20 of the said Act, penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner as the petitioner has not filed reply to show-cause. The reply was filed much after passing of the impugned order. He further submits that this case is fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Suresh Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P. (C) No. 2961 of 2015 dated 03.02.2020. 5. In view of the above facts and submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has filed show-cause reply much after passing of the impugned order dated 12.02.2015. There is already mechanism provided in the said Act, 2005. As per Section 20 of the said Act , penalty can be imposed. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bisheswar Ram v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 1924 of 2019 and the case of the petitioner is fully covered by two aforesaid judgments. In that view of the matter, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.