JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside letter no.5007 dated 06.06.2012 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner had been asked to show cause as to why an order under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 2005’) be not passed against him as the required information was not provided to the respondent no.2 within time and it was further directed to provide required information to the said respondent no.2 through speed post/registered post as well as to produce postal receipt of the same. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand-respondent no.1 in Appeal No.450 of 2012, whereby penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 has been imposed upon the petitioner to be realized from his salary or any other dues as well as recommendation has been made for initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 for dereliction of duty in not supplying information to the respondent no.2 despite direction issued in that regard. 2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was District Panchayati Raj Officer, Giridih-cum-Public Information Officer of the said Office. He received letter dated 06.12.11 sent by the respondent No.2 seeking certain information. On perusal of the required information, the petitioner found that it was in 54 pages and, therefore, he issued letter as contained in memo no.869 dated 30.12.2011 to the respondent no.2 asking him to deposit Rs.108/- for providing 54 pages information @ Rs. 2/- per page according to the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The said letter was also entered in the dispatch register of District Panchayat Raj Office, Giridih and was sent to the respondent no.2 through ordinary post after making entry in the mail register. The respondent no.2 did not deposit the requisite fee for getting the required information and as such the same was not furnished to him. The respondent no.2 filed first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih-cum-First Appellate Authority under the Act, 2005 and, thereafter, second appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. The respondent no.2 did not deposit the requisite fee for getting the required information and as such the same was not furnished to him. The respondent no.2 filed first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih-cum-First Appellate Authority under the Act, 2005 and, thereafter, second appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. The Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi vide letter No.5007 dated 06.06.2012 issued to the Public Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih sought explanation as to why an order under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005 be not passed against him. Thereafter, the Additional Collector-cum-District Public Information Officer, Giridih asked explanation from the petitioner vide letter no.222 dated 03.07.2012 which was responded by the petitioner vide letter No.432 dated 17.07.2012 communicating a copy of the same to the respondent No. 2 stating that upon receiving the application of the respondent no.2, he was asked vide memo No.869 dated 30.12.2011 to deposit Rs.108/- for providing 54 pages information @ Rs. 2/- per page, however, the same was not deposited till that date and as such the information could not be provided to him. It was further informed that if the required fee was deposited by the respondent no.2, the information would be provided to him. The respondent no.2, however, did not respond the said letter. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 in the impugned order has observed that the remarks column of the dispatch register was unfilled, however, it was not considered that necessary comments in the remarks column had to be filled in such situation when reminders were given or any reply was received. The mail register was also filed before the Commission to show that the letter sent by the petitioner was despatched to the respondent no.2 through post on 30.12.2011 by affixing postal stamp of Rs.5/-. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no.1 has wrongly observed that the petitioner was obliged to deliver information to the respondent no.2 free of cost and the said observation is contrary to the provision of section-7 (1) of the Act, 2005. Since vide letter dated 06.06.2012 the petitioner was not directed to provide the required information free of cost, he vide memo No.432 dated 17.07.2012 asked the applicant i.e. respondent No.2 to deposit the required fee so as to provide the desired information to him. 4. Since vide letter dated 06.06.2012 the petitioner was not directed to provide the required information free of cost, he vide memo No.432 dated 17.07.2012 asked the applicant i.e. respondent No.2 to deposit the required fee so as to provide the desired information to him. 4. It is also submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, since on the one hand the petitioner was asked vide letter dated 06.06.2012 to show cause and on the other hand he was directed to provide information without waiting for the show cause reply or providing any opportunity of hearing to him. It is further contended that the respondent no.1 has failed to consider that the petitioner neither refused to provide the entire required information to the respondent no.2 nor committed any delay, rather had informed the respondent no.2 to deposit the required fee within time. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 being arbitrary and illegal may be set aside. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2. However, the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 is on record wherein he has claimed that the letter as contained in memo No. 869 dated 30.12.2011 was not delivered to him. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submits that the petitioner deliberately did not provide the information to the respondent no.2 in spite of specific direction issued to him vide letter no.5007 dated 06.06.2012, rather he was adamant to provide desired information only after getting the required fee and as such a penalty of Rs.20,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner which was recoverable from his salary or any other dues in four equal installments. It was also recommended that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 for dereliction of duty. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to establish before the respondent no.1 that the notice for payment of required fee was duly served upon the respondent no.2 and as such he was duty bound to provide the information free of cost. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.08.2012, the information has already been supplied to the respondent no.2 free of cost. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.08.2012, the information has already been supplied to the respondent no.2 free of cost. Thus, the part of the impugned order has already been complied by the petitioner and he is aggrieved with that part of the order whereby penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed upon him and a recommendation has been made for initiation of departmental proceeding for dereliction of duty. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2023 of this Court, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that no departmental proceeding has yet been initiated against the petitioner. 9. The claim of the petitioner is that he had intimated the respondent no.2 within the stipulated time for depositing the required fee so as to furnish desired information sought by him, however, since the said fee was not deposited, the information could not be provided to him. The respondent no.1 has held in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to prove that the demand notice regarding payment of the required fee was delivered to the respondent no.2 within 30 days of limitation and as such the petitioner was obliged to supply the information to the respondent no.2 free of cost, but he failed to do so. 10. To appreciate the said issue, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions of the Act, 2005. Section 7 of the Act, 2005 provides for disposal of the request seeking information by an applicant under Section 6 of the said Act. 10. To appreciate the said issue, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions of the Act, 2005. Section 7 of the Act, 2005 provides for disposal of the request seeking information by an applicant under Section 6 of the said Act. As per the Section 7 of the Act, 2005, when any request seeking information is made to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, and where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005, requesting him to deposit that fees for the required information and the period intervening between the dispatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days as well as the information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms will also be intimated. Moreover, the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply the time limit for providing information. 11. Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 provides for penalties to be imposed upon the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer where it is found to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, that without any reasonable cause, he refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or mala fidely 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. However, the order of penalty shall be passed after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and 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. In view of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005, 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 mala fidely 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. 12. Thus, before ordering for imposition of penalty and initiation of departmental proceeding, the Chief Information Commissioner was required to satisfy himself that the petitioner had not given information to the respondent no.2 within time without any reasonable cause and had acted in a mala fide manner. 13. The petitioner has claimed that he had issued a letter to the respondent no.2 within the stipulated time for depositing required fee on his disclosed address. In support of the said claim, the petitioner has annexed relevant page of dispatch register with the writ petition in which the name and address of the petitioner at serial no.869 dated 30.12.2011 have been mentioned and in the subject column concerning the said serial number, it has further been written “the same is related to provide information under the Act, 2005”. The petitioner has also brought on record relevant part of mail register, which suggests that the letter was sent to the respondent no.2 through ordinary post on 30.12.2011 by affixing stamp of Rs.5.00. It is not in dispute that the address shown in the dispatch register and mail register is not correct. The petitioner has also brought on record relevant part of mail register, which suggests that the letter was sent to the respondent no.2 through ordinary post on 30.12.2011 by affixing stamp of Rs.5.00. It is not in dispute that the address shown in the dispatch register and mail register is not correct. On receiving the impugned letter no.5007 dated 06.06.2012, the petitioner replied the District Sub-Registrar-cum-District Public Information Officer, Giridih, copies of which were sent to the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 as well, stating that if the required fee for desired information was deposited by the respondent no.2, the same would be provided to him. The documents brought on record suggest that the petitioner had sent letter to the respondent no.2 through ordinary post for depositing the required fee on his disclosed address. Thus, he was under bona fide believe that the same was delivered to the respondent no.2 and as such subsection (6) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005, which speaks of providing the information free of charge to the applicant, will not be attracted. 14. The Act, 2005 does not provide for any specific mode of issuance of letter(s) to the applicant(s) and as such issuing letter to the respondent no.2 through ordinary post cannot be said to be against any provision of the said Act. Moreover, on bare perusal of the dispatch register as well as the mail register, it appears that the letter was issued to the respondent no.2 by the petitioner through ordinary post, which is a common practice prevailing in different offices of the State Government. 15. The respondent no.1 in its impugned order has given much stress to the fact that the remarks column of the despatch register was unfilled. The said aspect has sufficiently been explained by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the remarks column are filled only when the reminders are given or reply is received. The respondent no.1 has also observed in the impugned order that there was no evidence of delivery of the demand notice for payment of fees to the applicant within thirty days. The word ‘delivery’ has not been mentioned in Section 7(3) of the Act, 2005, rather the words “send an intimation” have been mentioned and thus the petitioner was not under statutory obligation to keep track of delivery of the letter. The word ‘delivery’ has not been mentioned in Section 7(3) of the Act, 2005, rather the words “send an intimation” have been mentioned and thus the petitioner was not under statutory obligation to keep track of delivery of the letter. Hence, the respondent no.2 was not entitled to be provided the required information without payment of fee. Since the notice was sent to the disclosed address of the respondent no.2 well within the stipulated time, the petitioner had the reasonable ground to refuse furnishing the information unless the fee was paid by the respondent no.2. That apart, after receiving the impugned letter no.5007 dated 06.06.2012 through the office of the Deputy Commissioner (RTI section), Giridih, the petitioner again informed the respondent no.2 to deposit fee for supplying required information which indicates bona fide on his part that he was ready to furnish required information. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 in Appeal No.450 of 2012 imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 as well as making recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the said Act is hereby quashed. 17. Since pursuant to the said order, the penalty amount of Rs.20,000/- has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner, the present Controlling Authority of the petitioner shall ensure refund of the said amount to him forthwith. 18. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.