JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 3.2.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ I petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 19.7.2013 passed by Chief Information Commissioner in an appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4, has been dismissed. 2. Brief of the case are that respondent No. 4 - Ashok Kumar moved an application on 26.4.2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005' hereinafter) and sought certain informations from the Gram Panchayat Tikhi, Panchayat Samiti, Sayala, District Jalore. When the said informations were not supplied to him, he filed an appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, while claiming that the appellant is not providing information to him pursuant to the application preferred by him under the Act of 12005. It was contended by the respondent No. 4 in the appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner that he moved an application for seeking certain j informations on 26.4.2011, however, the appellant has not provided the said information to him despite repeated requests. The Chief Information\Commissioner issued notices to the appellant, however, she did not respond to the, said notices and the Chief Information Commissioner, after considering the fact that the informations sought by the respondent No. 4 are not prohibited and he is entitiled to receive the informations free of cost, directed the appellant to supply information within 21 days through registered post and further imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the appellant for causing delay in supplying the informations to the respondent No. 4. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 19.7.2013 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, the appellant filed writ petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 3.2.2014. 4. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the arguments of the appellant to the effect that the application filed by the respondent No. 4 under the Act of 2005 seeking certain informations was not complete and the appellant informed the respondent No. 4 for collecting the informations but despite this, he did not collect the same. 4. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the arguments of the appellant to the effect that the application filed by the respondent No. 4 under the Act of 2005 seeking certain informations was not complete and the appellant informed the respondent No. 4 for collecting the informations but despite this, he did not collect the same. The learned Single Judge has held that the contention of the appellant that the application of the respondent No. 4 was not complete is an afterthought because in her letter dated 25.2.2012 to the Deputy Secretary to the Rajasthan Information Commission, she did not mention any fact to the effect that the application of the respondent No. 4 was defective. The learned Single Judge has also observed that so far as letter dated 10.2.2012, said to have been written by the appellant to the respondent No. 4 is concerned, the same has been written by the appellant after receiving the notice from the Rajasthan Information Commission. The learned Single Judge has observed that the said letter was written by the appellant only to conceal her incompetence. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the arguments raised before the learned Single Judge and tried to convince us that there is no negligence or lacunae on the part of the appellant in not supplying the informations to the respondent No. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant joined as Gram Sewak in Gram Panchayat Tikhi only on 15.8.2011, whereas the application for seeking informations was filed by the respondent No. 4 on 26.4.2011. However, the appellant has failed to satisfy us that even after 15.8.2011, why the appellant did not furnish informations to the respondent No. 4 till passing of the order by the Chief Information Commissioner. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the appellant had not received the application in charge from erstwhile Gram Sewak when she joined Gram Panchayat Tikhi on 15.8.2011. It is noticed that no such plea was ever taken by the appellant either before the Chief Information Commissioner or before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it can only be presumed that the said contention of the appellant is again an afterthought and not liable to be taken into consideration. 6. It is noticed that no such plea was ever taken by the appellant either before the Chief Information Commissioner or before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it can only be presumed that the said contention of the appellant is again an afterthought and not liable to be taken into consideration. 6. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, we are not inclined to take a different view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******