WPMS No.769 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Ashish Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar, the learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Admittedly, the information sought by respondent no.2 under the Right to Information Act was not supplied by the petitioner within the stipulated period, which made the respondent no.2 to file an appeal before the appellate authority. At that stage, the petitioner supplied the remaining information. This has led to the imposition of cost of Rs.3000/- for supplying the information belatedly. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the imposition of such cost, has filed the present writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the first date of hearing before the appellate authority, they had supplied the entire information and that for not supplying the information, the petitioner has issued a show cause notice to the person who was supposed to supply the information. Be that as it may. If a staff of the petitioner is responsible for not supplying the information, a suitable action may be taken by the petitioner, but, the fact remains that the information if not supplied under the Right to Information Act would lead to imposition of cost, which in the present case has been imposed rightly by the appellate authority. This court does not find any error in the said order. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 28.04.2011 LSR