JUDGMENT : The writ petitioner who suffered dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 3569 of 2012 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Before the writ Court, the order dated 16th May 2011 passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal Case No. 1462 of 2010 was put to challenge. 3. The writ Court has dismissed W.P.(C) No. 3569 of 2012 after the following consideration: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials brought on record, it appears that the writ petitioner Kumari Ranjana, Child Development Project Officer has not annexed the documents to establish that information sought for by the appellant/respondent no. 2 Soukat Ali under Right to Information Act, 2005 was supplied within time, rather the Letter No. 147 dated 15.04.2010 itself shows that the information was provided on 15.04.2010 only after preferring the appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission by appellant/respondent no. 2 Soukat Ali, which was registered as Appeal No. 1462/2010. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of any documentary evidence brought on record by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accept that information under Right to Information Act was invoked on 25.03.2010. This Court has perused the order passed by the Information Commissioner and has found that the officer was not diligent in pursuing the matter. The officer has not appeared before the Commission on 01.03.2011, though on 01.04.2011, the date was fixed for judgment on 16.05.2011, as such, this Court has no reason to interfere with the same. So far the penalty, which has been imposed against the officer to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 20 (1) & (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned, this Court is satisfied that this penalty is appropriate as the appellant/respondent no. 2 has to move from Dumka to Ranchi for his legal rights. So far compensation which has been awarded against the Department is concerned, the same cannot be assailed by the writ petitioner as the same is against the Department. The Department may prefer writ petition for assailing the same, as such, the impugned order does not require any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.” 4. Mr. The Department may prefer writ petition for assailing the same, as such, the impugned order does not require any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.” 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that before the powers under sub-section 2 to section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are exercised to impose penalty upon the delinquent government officer, the Jharkhand State Information Commission is required to consider the rival claims and record a finding that there has been persistent failure on part of the government officer in not supplying the requisite information within the stipulated time. 5. This submission has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the order dated 16th May 2011 which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is cryptic and does not reflect adjudication as contemplated under sub-section 2 to section 20. 6. To fortify his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to “Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another” (2012) 13 SCC 14 wherein 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. 17. The State Information Commission is performing adjudicatory functions where two parties raise their respective issues to which the State Information Commission is expected to apply its mind and pass an order directing disclosure of the information asked for or declining the same. 17. The State Information Commission is performing adjudicatory functions where two parties raise their respective issues to which the State Information Commission is expected to apply its mind and pass an order directing disclosure of the information asked for or declining the same. Either way, it affects the rights of the parties who have raised rival contentions before the Commission. If there were no rival contentions, the matter would rest at the level of the designated Public Information Officer or immediately thereafter. It comes to the State Information Commission only at the appellate stage when rights and contentions require adjudication. The adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice. It is not expected of the Commission to breach any of these principles, particularly when its orders are open to judicial review. Much less to Tribunals or such Commissions, the courts have even made compliance with the principle of rule of natural justice obligatory in the class of administrative matters as well.” 7. The provisions of section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are as under: “20. Much less to Tribunals or such Commissions, the courts have even made compliance with the principle of rule of natural justice obligatory in the class of administrative matters as well.” 7. The provisions of section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are as under: “20. Penalties.—(1) Where the Central Information Commission or 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.” 8. No doubt the order passed by an administrative or quasi judicial authority must reflect application of mind and contain reasons for reasons are the soul of the order. It is also necessary for the purposes of making the appellate/revisional authority aware of the foundation on which the order has been passed. 9. This is also a well-accepted proposition in law that an order which does not contain a reason shall be held passed in breach of the rules of natural justice. In the judgment in Manohar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court seems to have made observations in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 in the context of affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. Whereas, in the present case this is not a matter in dispute that notices were issued to the appellant and she was present on the date of passing of the order under challenge before the writ Court. The said order dated 16th May 2011 records that both sides were heard and the State Commission has perused the records. This order also records satisfaction of the State Commission that the government officer intentionally did not provide informations in spite of affording opportunity to her. It further appears from the said order that on finding the government officer not complying with its orders the State Commission afforded an opportunity to her to make her submissions in person and, in pursuance thereof, she had appeared before the State Commission on 16th May 2011. 10. Having regard to the findings recorded by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in its order dated 16th May 2011 wherein satisfaction of the authority has been recorded in unequivocal words, we are satisfied that the requirements under section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 have been complied with. 11. In the aforesaid circumstance we do not find any reason to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, LPA No. 17 of 2022 is dismissed.