JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.03.2017 as contained in memo No. 6417 dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No. 422/15 to the extent ‘the then Public Information Officer, Confidential Section, Gumla Collectorate’ i.e. the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’]. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter as contained in memo No. 76(i) dated 29.04.2017 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 communicating the order dated 15.03.2017 to the respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the period from 20.09.2013 to 19.05.2015 while the petitioner was posted as the District Land Acquisition Officer, Gumla, he was also directed by the respondent No.2 to discharge the duty of the Public Information Officer, District Confidential Section, Gumla. An application was made by the respondent No.6 on 05.07.2014 before the Public Information Officer of District Confidential Section, Gumla i.e. the petitioner seeking certain information under the provisions of the Act, 2005. 3. After receiving the application of the respondent No.6, the petitioner promptly requested the District Education Officer, Gumla vide letter dated 08.07.2014 to provide the required information after making enquiry. However, the said authority did not provide the same. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Director, Accounts, Administration and Self-Employment, District Rural Development Agency, Gumla vide letters dated 05.08.2014 & 26.08.2014 to provide the required information after making enquiry. However, the same was not provided by the said authority in time and hence the petitioner could not provide the required information to the respondent No.6 within the stipulated period of 30 days which was provided to him vide letter dated 14.10.2014 after receiving the same vide letter dated 09.09.2014. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commission suffers from infirmity as before imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the then Public Information Officer of the District Confidential Section, Gumla i.e. the petitioner exercising power under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, he was not provided any opportunity of hearing and on that ground alone, the said order is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSIC as well as Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, jointly submit that since the petitioner was the concerned Public Information Officer, he was supposed to provide the required information to the respondent No.6 within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005, however, he provided the information belatedly. The Commission has thus rightly passed the impugned order dated 15.03.2017. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commission primarily on the ground that before imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 upon the petitioner, no prior notice was issued to him and he was not provided any opportunity of hearing, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. For better appreciation of the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to quote Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 which reads as under: “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.” 8. Thus, the first proviso to Section 20(1) clearly mandates that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has to be given reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Commission before any penalty is imposed upon him. 9. On perusal of the impugned order dated 15.03.2017, it appears that on the said date, Mr. Samir Kachhap, who was the Public Information Officer during that period, had appeared before the Commission. The Commission while not finding the report submitted by him to be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2005, proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the then Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioner without issuing any notice to him. Non-issuance of notice to the petitioner is fatal in nature as the same is required to be mandatorily followed by the Commission in terms with the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005. 10. In the case of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “15. The State Information Commissions exercise very wide and certainly quasi-judicial powers. In fact their functioning is akin to the judicial system rather than the executive decision-making process. It is a settled principle of law and does not require us to discuss this principle with any elaboration that adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory for such Tribunal or bodies discharging such functions. 16. The State Information Commission has been vested with wide powers including imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees. Exercise of such power is bound to adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent. Thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. It will not be open to the Court to give them such liberal construction that it would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.” 11. Thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. It will not be open to the Court to give them such liberal construction that it would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.” 11. Since no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, this Court is of the view that the said order being contrary to the mandate of the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act 2005 cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby quashed. 12. Consequently, the impugned letter as contained in memo No. 76(i) dated 29.04.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 is also quashed. 13. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.