JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State Information Commission. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by the In-charge, Chief Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No.33 of 2013 which has been passed under section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared by way of Annexure-1 as deemed Public Information Officer of Government Polytechnic, Ranchi vide order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Information Commission, Ranchi. He further submits that for the first time it has been declared by the Information Commission as a deemed Public Information Officer and the only direction was to provide the information as to whether the information seeker respondent no.4 has appeared in the examination or not. He further submits that without considering this aspect of the matter the impugned order has been passed and that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed as penalty under section 19(8)(b) against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was brought as a respondent in the second appeal on 24.09.2014. Earlier the petitioner was also party in the proceeding. 4. Per contra, Mr. Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State Information Commission submits that this order has been passed under section 19(8)(b) and section 19(8)(b) is with regard to the date where the petitioner is not the Public Information Officer and in that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable as the order is not passed under section 20(1) of the Act. If such has been the case that it has been passed under section 20(1) of the said Act, the petitioner may having the cause of action. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court has perused the impugned order which has been passed under section 19(8)(b) of the Act against the public authority which is the college in this matter and in view of the case rendered in the case of '' Ashok Kumar Chopra v. State of Jharkhand & Others'' reported in 2019 SCC Online Jhar. 1388 , no relief can be extended to the petitioner as this order is not against the petitioner. 6. The writ petition [W.P.(C) No.6501 of 2014] stands disposed of clarifying the position of law as above.