Judgment ( 1. ) In the present case, the petitioner a practising advocate, Kailaras district Morena has filed the present writ petition for issuance of an appropraite writ, order or direction for initiating action in the matter of imposition of penalty against the respondent No. 2 as per section 20 of the Right of Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of2005). The contention of the petitioner is that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has issued a notification under the provisions of the Act of2005, notifying the Public Information Officers as well as the appellate authorities and the petitioner as per the provisions of section 6 (1) of the Act of2005, has preferred an application seeking certain information. It has been categorically stated that an application was preferred before the District and Sessions Judge, Morena seeking certain information. The petitioner has further stated that the Public Information Officer (respondent No. 3) has processed the matter, however, he sought instructions in the matter from the respondent No. 2 (appellate authority). The petitioner has further stated that the respondent No. 2 (appellate authority) has issued a letter dated 11th January, 2007 to the In-charge, Copying section, not to grant copies in the light of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005. The petitioner has also stated that the Public Information Officer has failed to dispose of his application within the prescribed period of thirty days as provided under section 17 of the Act of 2005 and, therefore, a first appeal was preferred under section 19 of the Act of 2005 before the appellate authority. The petitioner has further stated that the appellate authority as notified by the High Court is the District and Sessions Judge, Morena and, no order was passed by the appellate authority and finally an appeal was also preferred before the State Information Commission and an order was passed by the State Information Commission as contained in Annexure P/1 for granting information under the Act of2005. The petitioner has further stated that the State Information Commission while passing an order dated 10th April, 2008 has also directed for issuance of show cause notice to the Public Information Officer for imposition of punishment upon him. The petitioner has further stated that the State Information Commission while passing an order dated 10th April, 2008 has also directed for issuance of show cause notice to the Public Information Officer for imposition of punishment upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that no further action has been taken in the matter and, therefore, an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued in the peculiar facts and circumstanes of the case for imposition of penalty upon the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (1) The writ of Mandamus and or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued whereby the part of the impugned order dated 1 Oth April, 2008 (Annexure P/1) lacking initiation of action of imposing penalty against the respondent No. 2 as per section 20 of the Act be quashed. (2) That, the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to initiate action as per section 20 of the Act for imposing penalty against the appellate authority respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. (3) Any other relief as this Honble Court deems fit, may kindly be granted doing justice in the matter." ( 2. ) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 has categorically stated in the reply which is duly supported by an affidavit that the respondent No. 2 was not the Chief Information Officer at any point of time. The respondent No. 2 has not denied that the petitioner has submitted an application to the Public Information Officer under the Act of2005 and has also categorically stated that some clarification was sought by the Officer-in-charge of the copying section and he has clarified to the Officer-in-charge of the copying section vide letter dated 11th January, 2007 that the information as desired by the petitioner cannot be furnished to him. The respondent No. 2 has also stated that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the matter and the State Information Commission has passed an order dated 1 Oth April, 2008 for taking action against the Public Information Officer. The respondent No. 2 has also stated that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the matter and the State Information Commission has passed an order dated 1 Oth April, 2008 for taking action against the Public Information Officer. The respondent No. 2 has categorically stated before this Court that he was not the Public Information Officer and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, a punishment can be imposed upon him as per the provisions of section 20 of the Act of2005 as he was simply an appellate authority in the matter. The respondent No. 2 has also enclosed an order dated 28th August, 2008 passed by the State Information Commission wherein after receiving explanation from the Public Information Officer, the matter has been closed. The respondent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 3. ) Heard the petitioner present in person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. ( 4. ) In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 3 was notified as the Public Information Officer by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred under section 4 (1) of the Act of2005 and the respondent No. 2 was notified as an appellate authority. The petitioner has filed an application under section 6 (1) of the Act of2005 before the Public Information Officer, i.e. District and Sessions Judge, Morena (respondent No. 3). The petitioner has not preferred any application before the respondent No. 2. The record further reveals that the officer-in-charge of the copying section has sought some clarification from the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 has written a letter dated 11th January 2007 to the Officer-in-charge, copying section and on the basis of this letter, the requisite information was not furnished by the Public Information Officer. The petitioner has preferred an appeal in the matter and the appellate authority has passed a detailed order on 1 Oth April, 2008 directing the Public Information Officer to supply the desired information to the petitioner and the same has also been done. The petitioner who is present in the Court has categorically stated that he has received the desired information in the matter. In the present case, the relief prayed by the petitioner is to punish the respondent No.2. The petitioner who is present in the Court has categorically stated that he has received the desired information in the matter. In the present case, the relief prayed by the petitioner is to punish the respondent No.2. This Court has carefully gone through the order dated 10th April, 2008 passed by the State Information Commission which reflects that the proceedings were initiated for taking action against the Public Information Officer. A final order dated 28th July, 2008 passed by the State Information Commission is also on record wherein the State Commission has closed the matter after receiving a reply from the respondent No. 3. This order has not been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner has prayed for taking action against the respondent No. 2, who is the appellate authority in the matter. ( 5. ) Section 20 of the Act of2005 which deals with the penalities 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 are 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 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 Officer, as the case may be, has without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to recieve an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 are malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing 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. ( 6. ) The aforesaid statutory provision as contained in section 20 of the Act of 2005 provides for imposition of penalties by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission only in respect of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. The aforesaid statutory provision does not provide for imposition of any penalty upon the appellate authority. This Court has carefully scanned the relief clause in the writ petition and the petitioner has prayed for imposition of penalty upon the respondent No. 2. The petitioner himself has filed a document as Annexure P/2 and the aforesaid notification issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh makes it very clear that the respondent No. 2 at the relevant point of time was the appellate authority as per the provisions of the Act of2005. Resultantly, as the respondent No. 2 was the appellate authority no order of imposing penalty could have been passed under section 20 of the Act of2005 and, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of section 20 of the Act of2005, the question of initiating action for imposing penalty against the respondent No. 2 does not arise in the matter. This Court has also carefully gone through the letter dated 11th January, 2007 and is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid letter was written in good faith by the appellate authority and it was not a direction to the officer-in-charge of the copying section. This Court has also carefully gone through the letter dated 11th January, 2007 and is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid letter was written in good faith by the appellate authority and it was not a direction to the officer-in-charge of the copying section. Not only this, the Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission after hearing the respondent No. 3 has arrived at a conclusion that no action is required further in the matter in respect of imposition of penalty upon the Public Information Officer. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have acted in good faith in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter. ( 7. ) The Writ petition sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.