ORDER 1. Calling in question tenability of an order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the M.P. State Information Commissioner, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner in accordance to the provisions of section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Petitioner is substantively holding the post of Chief Chemist in the M.P. Pollution Control Board, Bhopal and in the year 2006 was made a Public Information Officer of the Board. On 5.9.2006, certain informations were sought for by one Shri Ajay Dubey under the provisions of Right to Information Act. The petitioner marked over the information sought for to the Finance Officer for seeking feed-back and information. The information seeker thereafter made various communications and finally some information was given. However, when the matter travelled to the State Commission, the Commission found that the petitioner was not given the information in time and, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- under section 20(1) of the Act. 3. Shri R.N. Singh, learned senior advocate invited my attention to the application filed vide Annexure P-1 the information sought for and action taken by the petitioner to say that immediately after the application was filed by the Information Seeker on 5.9.2006 petitioner on 7.9.2006 vide Annexure P-2 sought for information from the concerned department. The department informed the petitioner that no such information is available with them. Thereafter the petitioner refers to various correspondence, which shows that petitioner sought for supply of the relevant material. After the necessary information and details were supplied to him by the department concerned, he passed orders on the application of the information seeker. Accordingly, contending that from documents Annexure P-2 to P-11 the petitioner has tried to demonstrate as to how delay was occasioned in calling information and by ignoring all these factors and by holding that information was not giving in time, it is stated that petitioner has proceeded with and penal action is taken by imposing maximum penalty. 4. Shri R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel invited my attention to the provisions of rule 20(1) to say that merely because there is delay in supplying the information that does not mean that Information Officer can automatically impose the maximum penalty. 4. Shri R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel invited my attention to the provisions of rule 20(1) to say that merely because there is delay in supplying the information that does not mean that Information Officer can automatically impose the maximum penalty. It was submitted by him that the Information Officer should go through and consider the action taken by the petitioner, conduct an enquiry and if satisfied that information was withheld deliberately can impose the maximum penalty, it is argued that the State Information Officer without reasonable cause or in an incorrect or malafide manner imposed the penalty. It is stated that in this case the ingredients necessary to show that petitioner has acted malafidely or without any reasonable cause imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- is not warranted. 5. I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. From the record it is seen that after application was submitted on 5.9.2006 vide Annexure P-1 the petitioner sought for information from the concerned department, as is evident from the note-sheet Annexure P-2 within two days on 7.9.2006. The petitioner was informed by the department concerned immediately thereafter on 9.6.2006 that the information sought for is not available with them and the documents are also not available and accordingly, on 29.9.2006 petitioner made a reply and forward it to the Information Seekder vide Annexure P-3. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid the Information Seeker filed a first appeal before the appellate authority on 4.10.2006, the first appellate authority called for information from the petitioner and the appeal was disposed of on 9.10.2006 vide Annexure P-4. Thereafter second appeal was filed by the information seeker before the State Commission on 16.11.2006 and the impugned action was taken vide the impugned order. It is seen from the record that the petitioner appeared before the State Information Officer and gave all the details about the action taken during the proceedings held before the State Information Officer the petitioner gave various informations pertaining to pendency of the matter and pointed out that information could not be given for want of proper feed-back from the department. 6. Looking to the explanation given by the petitioner, it is not a case where the petitioner can be held wholly responsible for not giving information in time. 6. Looking to the explanation given by the petitioner, it is not a case where the petitioner can be held wholly responsible for not giving information in time. Petitioner has given various justification for the delay in supplying the information and the State Information Commissioner while imposing the penalty vide impugned order has only held that as the petitioner withheld information beyond the prescribed period, therefore, he is liable to be punished and in a mechanical way without adverting to consider the reasons for delay and explanation given by the petitioner imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/-. It is a case where there is some delay on the part of petitioner, but petitioner has given various justification for the same. It may be a case where petitioner did not use his statutory power in more diligent and strict manner but left it to the department concerned to respond at their own sweet will. That being so, it is a case where for the delay that occurred the petitioner can held responsible and there are certain latches on the part of petitioner in not taking proper action in the matter. However, the question is as to whether this attitude of the petitioner can be termed as malafide or unreasonable to such an extent that the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/-should be imposed? For the same set of delay against the Head of the Department, namely Chairman of the Board Rs.1,500/- has been imposed, but against the petitioner maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed. Even though in the writ petition filed by the Head of the Department i.e. W.P. No.1136/2009, reported in 2015(II) MPWN 11 , on other legal ground the penalty imposed against him is quashed by this Court. It is a case where even though there is some delay on the part of petitioner but his action cannot be termed as unreasonable, arbitrary or malafide warranting extreme penalty to be imposed against him. It is a case where even though some penalty should be imposed upon the petitioner but same should be proportionate to the conduct of the petitioner in causing the delay in giving information. The conduct of the petitioner is not so serious or unreasonable warranting imposition of extreme penalty of Rs.25,000/-. It is a case where even though some penalty should be imposed upon the petitioner but same should be proportionate to the conduct of the petitioner in causing the delay in giving information. The conduct of the petitioner is not so serious or unreasonable warranting imposition of extreme penalty of Rs.25,000/-. Interest of justice would be met in case as a penalty for his inaction petitioner is imposed with a penalty of Rs.3,000/- only which will meet the cause of justice. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. Even though imposition of penalty on the petitioner is upheld, but quantum of punishment is reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed in part.