JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the Tamil Nadu Public Information Commission dated 26.07.2012 and to direct the Commission to impose penalty on the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 20 of Right to Information Act, 2005 (In short "RTI Act"). 3. The case of the petitioner is that he sought for informations by his letter dated 25.11.2011. Since no reply was forthcoming, he forwarded a reminder on 26.12.2011 and after lapse of 47 days, out of 9 informations, reply was given only for 3 and for the remaining 6 questions, he was directed to approach the first respondent. Aggrieved by the reply, an appeal was filed to the Appellate Authority on 01.02.2012, but it was dismissed on 27.02.2012 observing that the second respondent had already furnished the informations. Thereafter, the second respondent on 20.03.2012 provided information for five questions and also enclosed the documents. Since environmental clearance sought for by the petitioner was not furnished, he approached the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, by a letter dated 20.04.2012 for inordinate delay in furnishing the information and to impose penalty on the second respondent. 4. The Public Information Officer had filed a sworn statement dated 18.07.2012 stating that copies of the information reports were handed over to the petitioner in person on 25.06.2012 at his place and on the basis of statement, the first respondent closed the case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 7 of Right to Information Act, mandates the State Public Information Officer or the Central Public Information Officer to provide information within 30 days of receipt of the request and if the information officer refused to receive the application or failed to furnish information within the time, penalties have to be imposed by invoking Section 20 of the RTI Act. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sought information, while the case of the Sterlite was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the information was deliberately withheld by the respondents and hence, it is the fit case for imposing penalty. 7. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sought information, while the case of the Sterlite was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the information was deliberately withheld by the respondents and hence, it is the fit case for imposing penalty. 7. In the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioner sought information about M/s.Sterlite Industries Limited through his letters dated 25.11.2011 and 28.11.2011 and they were forwarded to the District Environmental Engineer, Thoothukudi vide a memo dated 02.12.2011, which was received by the District Environmental Engineer, Thoothukudi on 09.12.2011. A reply was sent to the petitioner on 12.01.2012. Not satisfied with the reply, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 01.02.2012. Since he did not receive all informations, the petitioner preferred 2nd Appeal to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission by his letter dated 20.04.2012. Pursuant to the direction by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, all informations were provided to him on 25.06.2012. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner sought information for 9 questions and the informations were supplied in piecemeal and the delay is not an intentional, wilful nor vindictive. The delay occurred due to the reason that the respondents have to furnish voluminous documents. 9. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Public Information Officer refused to receive his request nor entire information was not furnished. In the counter, it is stated that immediately, the first respondent has forwarded the letter of the petitioner dated 25.11.2011 to the District Environmental Officer on 02.12.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner received information for three questions on 12.01.2012. The affidavit of the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, dated 18.07.2012 shows that all informations sought for by the petitioner were handed over in person 25.06.2012. 10. There is no quarrel that penalty can be imposed on the Public Information Officer under Section 20 of RTI Act, if he refused to receive the application or he has not furnished information in accordance with Section 7 of the Act and the burden of proof is cast on the Public Information Officer to prove that he acted reasonably and diligently. The petitioner seeks to impose penalty, by applying the principles of res ipsa loquitor. 11. The petitioner seeks to impose penalty, by applying the principles of res ipsa loquitor. 11. A perusal of the counter shows that the respondents have acted reasonably in furnishing information to the petitioner and no materials have been produced to show that they acted with mala fide intention. 12. In such view of the matter, I find no reason to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.