Judgment Alok Singh, J. In the present petition, order under challenge is dated 10.9.2013 passed by Chief Information Commissioner, whereby a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed against the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing delayed information to respondent no. 2, herein. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent no. 2, a practicing Advocate, moved an application on 19.7.2012, Annexure No. 2 to the petition, before the petitioner, herein, who, at the relevant time, was Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, to provide certain informations as sought in the application dated 19.7.2012. Undisputedly, informations sought at Sr. Nos. 2 & 3 of the Annexure No. 2 to writ petition were supplied to respondent no. 2, herein, on 2.7.2013. 3. Undisputedly, petitioner, herein, stood transferred from the Municipal Board, Rudrapur in the month of May, 2013. 4. Having received notice from respondent no. 1, the petitioner, herein, filed his reply on 9.9.2013 specifically stating therein that order of the first appellate authority dated 11.2.2013 was served in his office on 26.2.2013 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner directed the Head Clerk working in the Municipal Board to provide informations at the earliest, however, most of the employees of the Municipal Board were busy in collection/preparation of relevant data and voter identity card and in other rescue work because of natural disaster occurred in the month of May – June, 2013, therefore, information could not be furnished within time. 5. Undisputedly, on the date fixed before respondent no. 2 in appeal, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. It seems that appellant/respondent no. 2, herein, was not interested in pursuing the appeal in view of the fact that information sought had already been supplied to him. Even then, respondent no. 1 proceeded with the appeal and observed that information was supplied with delay, therefore, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. 6. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under : “20. Even then, respondent no. 1 proceeded with the appeal and observed that information was supplied with delay, therefore, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. 6. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 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. (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.” 7. Having perused Section 20 of the Act, I have no hesitation to hold that when the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, while hearing the complaint or appeal, is of the opinion that 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, in that event penalty can be imposed. In the further opinion of this Court, if there was reasonable cause for furnishing the delayed information then Chief Information Commissioner should not impose penalty merely because there was some delay in supplying the information. 8. In the case in hand, first of all, appellant was not present before the Appellate Authority at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing for the reason he had already received the information. Moreover, the explanation furnished by the petitioner before respondent no. 1 that he had directed the Head Clerk to supply the information immediately but information could not be supplied before his transfer for the reason that entire staff of the Municipal Board was engaged in the collection of data and preparation of the voter identity card under the order of Collector, Rudrapur and was busy in the rescue work after natural calamity happened in June, 2013, seems to be reasonable ground for non supplying the information within time. 9. Consequently, imposition of penalty on hypertechnical ground that information was not supplied within thirty days seems to be totally unjustified and arbitrary. 10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.9.2013 is hereby quashed.