JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 5.5.2017 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.52 of 2017 imposing penalty of Rs.22,250/- against the petitioner in contravention of Section 20 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005. 2. Heard Mr.Th. Ibohal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr.M.Devananda, learned counsel for the first respondent; Mr.P.Tomcha, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. Advocate General for the third respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Sub Deputy Collector, Sagolmang under the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District, Porompat since 12.9.2016 and soon after joining the said post, he was fully engaged to Manipur State Legislative Assembly Election, 2017 as he worked as Assistant Returning Officer of Khundrakpam Assembly Constituency and he could not take up the other matters of the office, including the revenue matters except urgent routine mattes. While so, on 17.4.2017, for first time, the Branch Office of the Deputy Commissioner, informed that one appeal case is pending in the office of the Information Commissioner, wherein the petitioner is a party and summons issued by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial-II), Manipur Information Commission to the Commissioner (Revenue); the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) and the Sub Divisional Commissioner, Sagolmang were handed over to the petitioner. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that on inspection about the matter, he came to know that the second respondent has filed an application dated 5.1.2017 seeking certified copies of documents in connection with a homestead land covered by Dag No.1167 under old patta No.638, new patta No.401 situate at Village No.11, Khundrakpam, Imphal East District. He has also sought information about the delayed information in connection with the Mutation Petition No.682/SDC/IE and its order dated 17.2.2006. 5. According to the petitioner, the grievance of the second respondent was not brought to the notice of the petitioner as he was fully engaged with the election matters as he was attached with the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East. However, the Deputy Commissioner by a letter dated 10.1.2017 informed the office of the Sub Divisional Commissioner, Sagolmang to dispose of the same in his capacity as SPIO under the RTI Act. The said letter was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner by a letter dated 10.1.2017 informed the office of the Sub Divisional Commissioner, Sagolmang to dispose of the same in his capacity as SPIO under the RTI Act. The said letter was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner also came to learnt that the second respondent has filed an appeal to the Chief Secretary on 9.2.2017, which was endorsed to the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) and the same was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East on 24.2.2017. The second respondent also filed a second appeal to the State Chief Information Commissioner which was registered as Appeal No.52 of 2017. 6. It is alleged by the petitioner that on getting information of the pendency of the Appeal No.52 of 2017, the petitioner sent a Circle Mandol of the office of the SDC, Sagolmang to attend the office of the Chief Information Commissioner on 25.3.2017 to collect full information by obtaining necessary copies. On 25.3.2017, the Chief Information Commissioner passed an order asking the office of the SDC, Sagolmang through the Circle Mandol to furnish the information sought by the second respondent and, accordingly, re-fixed the appeal on 21.4.2017. During the period, the petitioner with the help of the other officials, was trying to trace out the records of Mutation Case No.682 of 2016 and other connected records. Despite vigorous search, the said old records were not traceable and were found missing. As such, on 21.4.2017, the Chief Information Commissioner was requested for granting some more time to find out the whereabouts of the records in order to furnish necessary information sought by the second respondent. However, to the utter surprise, the Chief Information Commissioner, passed an order on 21.4.2017 in the form of a decision to furnish the complete information to the second respondent/applicant within ten days free of cost and refixed the case for 5.5.2017. By the order dated 21.4.2017, the Chief Information Commissioner also called explanation from the petitioner as to why he denied to provide information to the second respondent within the mandated time and despite direction of the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East. 7. By the order dated 21.4.2017, the Chief Information Commissioner also called explanation from the petitioner as to why he denied to provide information to the second respondent within the mandated time and despite direction of the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East. 7. According to the petitioner, on 5.5.2017, the official representative of the SDC, Sagolmang requested the Chief Information Commissioner to grant some more time to find out the missing records so as to enable to furnish the information to the second respondent and also submit reply to the show cause as per the direction. However, instead of granting time, the Chief Information Commissioner, passed an order impugned herein directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs.22,250/- at the rate of Rs.250/- per day for 89 days and also directed the SDC, Sagolmang to provide complete information to the second respondent free of charge within 30 days with liberty to the second respondent to approach the Commission by filing Miscellaneous Application within two weeks, if he has any further grievance relating to this case. Challenging the said order dated 5.5.2017, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 8. The respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. 9. Assailing the impugned order dated 5.5.2017, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was never given a chance or opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order thereby imposing penalty. The affording of an opportunity of being heard against the imposition of any penalty is mandatory as per Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the Chief Information Commissioner passed the impugned order in violation of the mandatory provision. 10. Mr. Th. Ibohal, the learned senior counsel further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 5.5.2017 in part, the petitioner sent a letter to the second respondent on 30.5.2017 stating that the records of Mutation Case No.682 of 2016 along with the order dated 17.2.2006 were missing untraceable. He was also informed about the entry in Jamabandi under the old patta No.638, new patta No.401 covered by Dag No.1167, maintained in the office of the SDC, Sagolmang, the name of P.Chaoba Singh, as mentioned by the second respondent, has not been reflected in the records. 11. He was also informed about the entry in Jamabandi under the old patta No.638, new patta No.401 covered by Dag No.1167, maintained in the office of the SDC, Sagolmang, the name of P.Chaoba Singh, as mentioned by the second respondent, has not been reflected in the records. 11. The learned senior counsel urged that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 30.5.2017 regarding delay in furnishing the information sought by the second respondent to the Information Commission. However, on 5.6.2017, the second respondent filed miscellaneous application wherein he prayed for imposition of penalty against the petitioner for non-compliance of the decision issued by the Commission and also prayed to provide complete information to him and to pay penalty of Rs.22,250/-. 12. The learned senior counsel submitted that though the Commission granted two months time for compliance of the decision dated 5.5.2017, within one month i.e. on 5.6.2017, the second respondent has filed the miscellaneous application. On 20.6.2017, the Commission passed an order in connection with Appeal No.52 of 2017 that no further proceeding on the miscellaneous application is called for. However, the SDC, Sagolmang was directed to furnish a report on the outcome of the complaint lodged by the SDC, Sagolmang as soon as the same is ready. Pursuant to the direction, on 21.6.2017, the petitioner filed his written statement to the Chief Information Commissioner furnishing detailed information about the contents of the Jamabandi, missing of mutuation records and filing of a formal complaint to concerned police station. In view of the above, the learned counsel prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner squat on the application of the second respondent for years together without furnishing the required information sought by him, which necessitated the second respondent in approaching the Chief Information Commission by way of Appeal No.52 of 2017. They submit that after analysing the grievance of the appeal and upon observing that the SDC, Sagolmang has failed to furnish the information to the second respondent despite direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, besides, the SDC, Sagolmang has not complied with the direction of the Commission to furnish the information within ten days and to submit a reply to the explanation vide its decision dated 21.4.2017. Therefore, the Chief Information Commissioner has rightly imposed the penalty to the SDO, Sagolmang under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and delay of 89 days has been caused from the mandated time to furnish information/reply to the second respondent in response to his RTI application dated 5.1.2017. 14. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 15. Admittedly, in the case on hand, before passing the order impugned, the Chief Information Commissioner has not heard the petitioner. Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for affording an opportunity of being heard against the imposition of any peanlty. For proper appreciation, Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is extracted hereunder: '20. Penalties.-(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.' 16. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the information sought by the second respondent at the earlier point of time, as he was engaged in the election work of Manipur State Legislative Assembly Election, 2017. After knowing the appeal case filed by the second respondent, he arranged a representative of the office of the SDC, Sagolmang to appear before the Commission and sought time to furnish the information and despite the official representative of the office of the SDC, Sagolmang appeared and requested the Chief Information Commissioner on 5.5.2017 to grant some more time to find out the missing records so as to enable it to furnish the information sought by the second respondent and to show cause as per the direction of the Commission, the Commission has passed the impugned order. 17. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that while passing the order, the Commission recorded that during the hearing, neither the SDC, Sagolmang appeared before the Commission nor submitted any reply to the show cause notice issued by the Commission vide order dated 21.4.2017. It is also recorded in the impugned order that on being asked the representative of the SDC, Sagolmang who attended the hearing today whether information has been provided to the second respondent or not, he replied negative and sought time. Since the SDC, Sagolmang was engaged in election work, he was not personally appeared before the Commission on 5.5.2017 and his official representative was directed to be appeared before the Commission and sought time. Since the SDC, Sagolmang was engaged in election work, he was not personally appeared before the Commission on 5.5.2017 and his official representative was directed to be appeared before the Commission and sought time. Nothing prevented the official representative of the SDC, Sagolmang to appear before the Commission and sought time. 18. As stated supra, when the Chief Information Commissioner finds that there is total delay on the part of the SDC, Sagolmang in furnishing information sought by the second respondent and the Commission inclined to impose penalty on the SDC, Sagolmang, it has to first hear the SDC, Sagolmang before imposing penalty. However, in this case, no opportunity was given to the SDC, Sagolmang before imposing penalty. That part, as could be seen from the records and arguments of both parties that there is no wanton delay on the part of the SDC, Sagolmang in furnishing the information sought by the second respondent. On the other hand, the delay caused has been explained by the SDC, Sagolmang and this Court convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner for delay, as the SDC, Sagolmang at the relevant point of time was engaged in the election work. 19. It is also to be noted that after passing the impugned order dated 5.5.2017, the SDC, Sagolmang sent a letter to the second respondent stating that the records of Mutation Case No.682 of 2016 along with the order dated 17.2.2006 were missing and untraceable. The SDC, Sagolmang also informed the second respondent regarding the information about the entry in Jamabandi under old patta No.638 and new patta No.401 covered by Dag No.1167 maintained in the office of the SDC, Sagolmang, the name of Chaoba Singh as mentioned by him, has not been reflected in the records. Though the said information furnished to the second respondent is in delay, since the delay has been explained by the petitioner - SDC, Sagolmang, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as there was no fault on the petitioner - SDC, Sagolmang in timely furnishing the information. 20. Though the said information furnished to the second respondent is in delay, since the delay has been explained by the petitioner - SDC, Sagolmang, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as there was no fault on the petitioner - SDC, Sagolmang in timely furnishing the information. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to have a solution in this matter, this Court is inclined to pass an order directing the second respondent to furnish a copy of the application dated 5.1.2017 to the present SDC, Sagolmang, who in turn dispose of the same by furnishing the required information sought in it within a reasonable period. No prejudice would be caused either to the second respondent or the official respondents, if the impugned order dated 5.5.2017 is quashed by directing the parties to act in terms of this order. 21. Accordingly, following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.5.2017 is set aside. (ii) The second respondent is hereby directed to submit a copy of the application for obtaining information under RTI Act, 2005 dated 5.1.2017 before the present SDC, Sagolmang, Imphal East District within a period one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) Upon receipt of the copy of the application dated 5.1.2017, the present SDC, Sagolmang and the person who worked as SDC, Sagolmang during the period of 2017 are directed to dispose of the said application dated 5.1.2017 and furnish copy of the documents sought for under the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of two months thereafter. (iv) No costs.