JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 13.12.2011 passed by Chief Information Commissioner, whereby penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 sought information vide letter dated 22.05.2009, however, information sought were supplied to the applicant on 14.07.2010. Explanation was furnished by the petitioner before the Chief Information Commissioner to the effect that original concerned file went missing and was not traceable which were later on got reconstructed and thereafter information was supplied to the applicant. 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 or information or has not furnished information within the time specifed under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly give 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.” 2. A plain reading of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the Act would reveal that penalty can be imposed for delayed information if delay was caused without any valid reason. 3. In the present case, explanation furnished by the petitioner before the Chief Information Commissioner was that concern file was not traceable in the department and same was got reconstructed later on and thereafter information was supplied to the applicant. Chief Information Commissioner has nowhere observed that explanation furnished by the petitioner is a mere eye-wash and is not reasonable. 4. In my considered opinion, if explanation for delayed information is reasonable and delay was caused due to valid reasons then penalty should not be imposed by invoking of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20. Therefore, impugned judgment does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 13.12.2011 is hereby quashed. 5. CLMA No. 10280 of 2012 also stands disposed of accordingly.