JUDGMENT Krishna S. Dixit, J. - The petitioner being a Public Information Officer is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 06.03.2015, passed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner for State Information, whereby, a fine of Rs.10,000/- has been levied for the delay crept in furnishing the subject information. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, prescribes Rs.25,000/- as the maximum penalty and that cogent reasons have to be given for awarding such a high amount by way of penalty, in respect of maiden lapses. 3. After service of notice, the 1st respondent-Commissioner is represented by its Panel Advocate and the 3rd respondent has remained unrepresented. Learned counsel for 1st respondent makes submission in justification of the impugned order contending that the merits of the order cannot be rovingly examined by the Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 vide Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524 . 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as, in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.16605/2015 (GM-RES) between Smt.N Manju Shree Vs. Commissioner and others, disposed of on 22.10.2020, has reduced the fine amount to Rs.5,000/-. There is no reason for this Court to take a different view. The facts of the case being substantially similar, similar treatment is the norm as enacted under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Even otherwise, it has now been settled that the order made under Section 20 of RTI Act has QUASI criminal nature. Where the Statute does not prescribe the minimum fine amount, but, only prescribes the maximum, the authority levying substantial amount as fine has to give cogent reasons in support thereof. Even this norm has not animated the impugned order as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Added, the petitioner is a high ranking official who has offered plausible explanation for the delay brooked in furnishing the information officers of the kind do have tremendous workload, can not be much disputed. 6. Even this norm has not animated the impugned order as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Added, the petitioner is a high ranking official who has offered plausible explanation for the delay brooked in furnishing the information officers of the kind do have tremendous workload, can not be much disputed. 6. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, although the impugned order cannot be invalidated in its entirety, the fine amount needs to be and is reduced to Rs.5,000/-, which the petitioner shall remit within four weeks, failing which, the fine amount as awarded by the Respondent-Commissioner shall stand revived. 7. It hardly needs to be stated that this levying of fine shall not be treated as an adverse entry in the Service Register of the petitioner.