JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Case No. 2606/Re-enquiry ( OTHER LANGUAGE kW tprhuiz)/D/2014 dated 09.10.2015 and quash the same.) 1. The order dated 09.10.2015, passed by the State Information Commission, is sought to be quashed. 2. The third respondent filed an application on 13.06.2012 under the Right to Information Act, seeking certain informations. The said application was not responded within the time as contemplated. Thus, the petitioner approached the State Information Commission, who in turn conducted an enquiry and finally imposed the penalty of a sum of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner joined as a Public Information Officer at later point of time and he cannot be held liable for the belated communication of the informations sought for by the third respondent. 4. It is not in dispute that the informations sought for by the third respondent had already been provided. However, there was a delay in providing such information and taking note of the delay, the State Information Commission imposed penalty on the petitioner. 5. Perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the third respondent submitted the application under Right to Information Act, on 13.06.2012 and the petitioner Thiru.M.P.Muralidharan joined as a Public Information Officer only after 31.07.2014 on account of retirement of the previous Public Information Officer. However, the said statement was made as a contention raised by the petitioner. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the said ground raised by the petitioner has not been adjudicated. 6. If at all the petitioner cannot be held liable for the belated communication of information, then the penalty imposed on the petitioner is to be reviewed. In this regard, the original documents are to be verified by providing an opportunity to the petitioner and other parties. 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner claims that he is not responsible for the delay caused in furnishing the information, the penalty imposed is not in accordance with law. Thus, in view of the said submission, this Court is of an opinion that the case is to be remitted back for reconsideration. 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner claims that he is not responsible for the delay caused in furnishing the information, the penalty imposed is not in accordance with law. Thus, in view of the said submission, this Court is of an opinion that the case is to be remitted back for reconsideration. Consequently, the order impugned passed by the first respondent in proceedings No. 2606/Re-enquiry (kW tprhuiz)/D/2014 dated 09.10.2015 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration by providing opportunity to all the parties concerned and for verification of the records with reference to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and take a decision and pass orders as expeditiously as possible. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.