JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Shri Shikhar Anand, who appears for the Respondent no.1- State Information Commission and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, who appears on behalf of the Respondents no.2- LDA. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to provide the information sought by the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 and direct the Respondent No.2 to pay the fine imposed on it to the petitioner. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had made an application under the Right to Information Act on 03.04.2021 to the Public Information Officer of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) in which information was sought on Nine points. Information that was given by the LDA was incomplete. The petitioner approached the First Appellate Authority who passed an order on 03.04.2021 allowing the Appeal and directing the Public Information Officer to provide all information as was requested by the petitioner in his RTI application within 15 days of the order. However, such order was not complied with. The petitioner was forced to file a Second Appeal before the Respondent no.1 pointing out the information that was not provided by the Public Information Officer despite the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The State Information Commission repeatedly passed orders directing the Respondent no.2 to furnish the information on 31.10.2022, 05.06.2023 and 11.12.2023. The Respondent no.2, however, refused to provide such information and also refused to appear before the Respondent no.1. The Respondent no.1 then proceeded to pass impugned order dated 07.02.2024 directing the Respondent no.2 to pay a penalty of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner and also provided that such penalty shall be deducted from the salary of the Public Information Officer of the LDA and shall be deposited under the relevant head maintained for the said purpose by the Account Section. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still aggrieved as the information that he had sought, was not provided by the Respondent no.2. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still aggrieved as the information that he had sought, was not provided by the Respondent no.2. It is also not clear whether the order dated 07.02.2024 was challenged by the Respondent no.2 anywhere. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent no.1 did not direct the Respondent no.2 to provide the required information to the petitioner in the order passed finally on 07.02.2024 disposing of his Second Appeal and the Commission has abicated its responsibility and has instead imposed a fine which is to be deposited with the Commission itself. 5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent no.1 has pointed out the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.08.2015 in Writ Petition No.7523 (M/B) of 2015 [Lok Nyayarth Sanstha thru. its General Secretary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others], where this Court after considering the arguments raised by the petitioner, who was the General Secretary of the said Lok Nyayarth Sanstha, has noted that the grievance of the petitioner was that non-disclosure of information under the Act can only result in imposition of fine on the errant Public Information Officer and no further action is envisaged to ensure disclosure of information sought. The Court observed that whether a more stringent provision should be made, is a matter of Legislative Policy and the Court cannot direct that the Provision which has been made by Parliament should be amended or that it should be re-framed. Whether a better provision for compliance and for enforcing the statutory provisions for the disclosure of information should be made, is a matter for the law making Body to consider. Beyond this, it would not be appropriate or proper for the Court to issue any direction or issue any Mandamus. 6. We have also noticed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the difference between complaint made under Section 18 and the Second Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Act and the relevant Paragraphs nos.32, 39, 42, 48, 49 & 51 are being quoted hereinbelow:- "32. State of Manipur and Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the difference between complaint made under Section 18 and the Second Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Act and the relevant Paragraphs nos.32, 39, 42, 48, 49 & 51 are being quoted hereinbelow:- "32. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.” ******** “39. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to give information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act.” ******** “42. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other.” ******** “48. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 of the Act, when compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of the person who has been refused the information he has sought. Section 19(5), in this connection, may be referred to. Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the Information Officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 is a time-bound one but no limit is prescribed under Section 18. Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the Information Officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 is a time-bound one but no limit is prescribed under Section 18. So out of the two procedures, between Section 18 and Section 19, the one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person who has been denied access to information.” “49. There is another aspect also. The procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure. A right of appeal is always a creature of statute. A right of appeal is a right of entering a superior forum for invoking its aid and interposition to correct errors of the inferior forum. It is a very valuable right. Therefore, when the statute confers such a right of appeal that must be exercised by a person who is aggrieved by reason of refusal to be furnished with the information.” ******** “51. This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information vide applications dated 9-2-2007 and 19-5-2007 within a period of four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation." 7. We have also noticed a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.301 of 2024 [Vishwamitra Bajpai Vs. State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh and others], where also the writ petitioner had challenged order passed in Second Appeal by the State Information Commission allowing the Review Application made by the Public Information Officer and setting aside its order of Penalty and order of Recovery. The Court while considering the fact of the writ petitioner filing an Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act also noted that the primary object of the State Information Commission is to uphold the spirit of the Act and to facilitate access to information in a fair, transparent and fruitful manner. The Court while considering the fact of the writ petitioner filing an Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act also noted that the primary object of the State Information Commission is to uphold the spirit of the Act and to facilitate access to information in a fair, transparent and fruitful manner. It observed that the Commission had enormous Power under Section 18 to ensure that information seekers are furnished information regarding what they asked for and should not be driven away through filibustering tactics and while quoting the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Jain Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1021, the Court had made observations that the State Information Commission or for that matter any Authority under the RTI has an obligation to ensure a culture of information disclosure so as to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every Public Authority. It observed that the State Information Commission had abdicated its Power and Obligation under the RTI Act to furnish information which was demanded by the petitioner and to adjudicate whether the information that was supplied was incomplete or misleading or false. Even while setting aside its order of imposition of Penalty and Recovery, the State Information Commission had the power to issue direction to the Public Information Officer to ensure that the information that was demanded by the petitioner should be given to him. 8. We have noted the judgment as cited before this Court in the case of Lok Nyayarth Sanstha which relates to a grievance regarding the Powers given to the Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 relates to Complaint and in such cases no doubt the State Information Commission can either impose a penalty or recommend initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against the errant Public Information Officer. However, insofar as Section 19 of the Act is concerned, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another (supra), which we have quoted hereinabove, are relevant. 9. The order dated 07.02.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Respondent no.1- State Information Commission, U.P., Lucknow, to ensure that it may exercise all its Powers to extricate information from the Public Information Officer of the LDA which the petitioner had sought in his application. 10. 9. The order dated 07.02.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Respondent no.1- State Information Commission, U.P., Lucknow, to ensure that it may exercise all its Powers to extricate information from the Public Information Officer of the LDA which the petitioner had sought in his application. 10. Necessary orders be passed as are required under Section 19, in view of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and by this Court, in the aforecited judgments, and the matter be tried to be disposed of within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Respondent no.1. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.