JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari Order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records in Case no.9237/re-enquiry/D/2012 dated 27.08.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable in law.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari Order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records in Case no.9237/re-enquiry/D/2012 dated 27.08.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable in law. 2. The above Writ Petition is filed challenging an order of the Information Commission against imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- for the delay in furnishing the information sought by the 3rd respondent herein. The impugned order is passed to the effect that the 3rd respondent vide his letter dated 13.07.2011 sought certain information regarding the owner's name of the two apartments, planning permission, plan etc. Though initially information is provided, appeal was filed for non furnishing of documents. Thereafter, on 24.06.2013 the Information Commission has directed the petitioner to provide copies of the documents within seven days. Despite such order, the copies have not been furnished by the petitioner for more than six months. Apart from this petitioner, other Public Information Officers, who held the post at the relevant point of time between 13.07.2011 to 24.06.2013 were also asked to give explanation by the Information Commission. After perusing the explanation given, it has imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- and directed action against one of the Public Information Officers. The present petitioner was imposed with penalty alone, challenging the same, the present petition is filed. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, originally, the information was sought relating to the property in Old Survey No.36, New No.34, Perumal Mudali Street, Kondithope, Chennai-79 and the information sought by him was furnished on 07.03.2011 itself. Again on 13.07.2011, the 3rd respondent again sought copies of planning permission, building permission and other documents. Thereafter, appeal was filed on 20.08.2011 against the information given. 4. It is the contention that, the petitioner has joined as a Public Information Officer only on 11.01.2013, however he has been implicated and imposed penalty. Again on 13.07.2011, the 3rd respondent again sought copies of planning permission, building permission and other documents. Thereafter, appeal was filed on 20.08.2011 against the information given. 4. It is the contention that, the petitioner has joined as a Public Information Officer only on 11.01.2013, however he has been implicated and imposed penalty. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that when the information was sought at the first time, there were no details whatsoever with regard to the properties and the documents. Despite the information was provided, the documents were sought later. 5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that when the petitioner was given necessary information at the relevant period of time, imposing penalty is not according to law. Sufficient explanation was also given for non furnishing the copies. The main reason for not tracing of the documents sought is due to the division of the area into other division divided into Zone-5. In that process, the document could not be obtained immediately. Despite such information, the Information Commission has imposed penalty. Hence seeks to set aside the order. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the original letter dated 08.02.2011 seeking for such information was not filed by the petitioner. The explanation filed by the petitioner itself did not indicate that due to the division of the Zones, the documents could not be furnished immediately. However, there is a delay of six months in furnishing the copies. Hence, the Commission has rightly imposed penalty and opposed the Writ Petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the entire materials. 8. It is relevant to note that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has specifically stated in his affidavit that he has joined as a Public Information Officer only on 11.01.2013, prior to that other Public Information Officers held the posts, they also imposed penalty. It is relevant to note that the notice was first served on the petitioner by the Information Commission only on 24.06.2013 for his appearance. Thereafter, the copies were furnished on 11.07.2013 i.e. within a month. Whereas, the Commission has imposed penalty mainly on the ground that there was delay of 6 months and the reasons for the delay has not been properly explained. 9. Thereafter, the copies were furnished on 11.07.2013 i.e. within a month. Whereas, the Commission has imposed penalty mainly on the ground that there was delay of 6 months and the reasons for the delay has not been properly explained. 9. It is relevant to note that the other Public Information Officers have also given clear explanation as to why the documents could not be furnished on time for the reasons the Zone 3 was made as Zone 5, thereby, the documents sought could not be traced immediately. If the delay in filing the information was deliberate one, absolutely there is no difficulty for imposing penalty. The Information Commission has to satisfy itself whether the delay was deliberate without any reasonable cause. 10. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he joined office only on 11.01.2013 and he was served with notice by the Information Commission on 24.06.2013 and the information sought was as provided by him within a month, which cannot be construed to mean that there was a deliberate delay for a period of six months. When the officer joined office newly, it cannot be expected that he should be familiar with every file kept before him. Immediately after receipt of the notice, he has furnished the information sought for and the same is not taken note of by the Information Commission while imposing penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The State Information Commission has to give a finding that the delay was without any reasonable cause. On the other hand, when the explanation offered is reasonable, the penalty cannot be imposed as a matter of right. 11. It is also relevant to note that the Information Commission has proceeded as if the information has been sought for the first time only on 13.07.2011. Whereas, the 3rd respondent by his letter dated 08.02.2011 has sought for certain information which has already been furnished by the then Public Information Officer. Thereafter, on 13.07.2011, he sought copy of the documents of the voluminous documents without any details. In the meanwhile, the Zone has been divided as per the explanation given by the other Public Information Officers. 12. Thereafter, on 13.07.2011, he sought copy of the documents of the voluminous documents without any details. In the meanwhile, the Zone has been divided as per the explanation given by the other Public Information Officers. 12. Such view of the matter, when the Writ Petitioner has joined the office only in the year 2013 and information is also provided within a month after receipt of the notice from the Commission, it cannot be said that he has deliberately withheld the information which invited the penalty. It is also recorded by Information Commission that on 10.01.2013 that one Duraisamy, the Writ Petitioner herein was the Public Information Officer. Wheres, a specific stand was taken by the writ petitioner that he has joined duty only on 11.01.2013 and not on 10.01.2013. As already discussed, the notice to the writ petitioner was served by the Commission only on 24.06.2013 and the information was provided on 11.07.2013. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has withheld the information without any reasonable cause. 13. In such view of the matter, the orders passed no.9237/re-enquiry/D/2012 dated 27.08.2014 on the file of the first respondent / Information Commission, imposing penalty on the petitioner without considering the explanation furnished by him is hereby setaside. 14. In the result, this Writ Petition stands Allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.