Dated 05-10-2007

Name of the Complainant:
Shri Hemanta Sarma,
Resident Editor, Asomiya Pratidin,
Barpara, Bongaigaon.

Name of the Public Authority:
Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon

The following were present:
1. Shri M.C. Sahu, D.C., Bongaigaon
2. Shri L. Rehman ADC, Bongaigaon
3. Hemanta Sarma

Brief of the case
The petitioner submitted an appeal to the Commission through a letter dated 31.8.2007 which was received in the Commission office on 5.9.2007, stating that he had requested for certain information from the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon on 30.5.2007. He contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon supplied incomplete and misleading information for which he had to pay an amount of Rs. 220/- as photocopy charges of the documents. On receipt of the petition, the Commission fixed today's hearing and issued notice to the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon and the petitioner to be present. Accordingly, both the parties came for the hearing. The Deputy Commissioner, Bongaogaon was accompanied by his SPIO also.

The petitioner wanted the following information:
i) What were the construction works going on in the compound of the Deputy Commissioner's office.
ii) Under what heads, the money for this construction were being spent?
iii) Furnish the names of the Construction Committee formed by the District Administration for this purpose
iv) Number of meetings held by the Construction Committee in a month.
v) How many Construction Committees had been formed and what were the rules followed?
vi) Who was looking after the accounts and who passed the accounts/expenditure?

Submission of the Parties
The appellant stated that instead of the information he had been provided with a bunch of Photostat copies of documents for which he had to pay Rs. 220/-. He stated that the information furnished to him were irrelevant and incomplete and that he wanted the Public Authority to provide him with correct and complete information.

The Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon submitted that he had heard the appeal under Sec. 19(6) of RTI Act, 2005 and made a detailed order after careful consideration on 27th July, 2007. In that order he had mentioned that the information and the relevant documents requested by him had been furnished. The Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon asserted that the complete and correct information had been provided to the petitioner on all accounts.

The SPIO submitted that on receipt of the petition timely information was provided to the petitioner along with the details of the fees is to be paid.

Observation of the Commission

The Commission observed that the SPIO furnished the information to the petitioner along with the intimation of the cost of the photocopies with the detailed calculation thereof. However, the petitioner being not satisfied with it, made the first appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon. The Deputy Commissioner took up the appeal within the time limit and made a detailed order in which he gave pointwise information to the request of the petitioner. The Commission found that the complete and correct information on all the points raised by the appellant had been provided in the Deputy Commissioner's order. Necessary supporting documents had also been provided to the appellant.

The main complaint of the appellant was with regard to the photocopying charges of Rs.220/which he had to pay. The Commission made clear to him that the documents were relevant to the information sought by him. However, if he did not want the documents he should have stated so in his petition. As it was not done the Public Authority collected documents and informed him the cost which he had to pay. He was free not to accept them.

The Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon and his SPIO had been advised that in future they should inform the petitioner not only the charges for the documents to be provided but also that the petitioner had the choice to either to take the photocopy of the documents or inspect the documents and select which documents he would like to take. This would avoid the contention by the petitioner that he had been charged unnecessarily for the documents which he did not want.

Decision of the Commission
The Commission having considered all the aspects of the appeal in its entirety concluded that the complete and correct information had been provided to the petitioner by the Public Authority. This being the case, the appeal was rejected under Sec. 19(8)(d) of the RTI Act.

Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.



Authenticated true copy

(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

CC:
1. Shri M.C. Sahu, Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon.
2. Shri L. Rehman, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon
3. Shri Hemanta Sarma, Resident Editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Barpara, Bongaigaon.
4. Director, Information & Public Relations, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati.
5. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan.
6. Office file.


Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam