Dated 25-09-2007
Name of the Complainant:
Sri A. K Rakshit
Law Secretary, Advisory Board, AGSS
Barama, Nalbari.
Name of the Public Authority:
Finance Department
The following were present:
1. Shri K V Eapen, IAS
C & S, Finance Deptt.
2. Ms. R. Begum, ACS,
SPIO, Finance Deptt.
3. Shri Ajoy Kumar Rakshit,
Law Secy, Advisory Board, AGSS
4. Shri Hiran Sarania,
Office Asstt. Advisory Board, AGSS
Brief of the case
On 15.6.07, a petition was received from Sri A.K. Rakshit of Nalbari in which it was
stated that he submitted an application dated 27.1.07 seeking information under section
6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 from the State Public Information Officer of Finance Department,
Government of Assam which was received by her on 1.2.07. The SPIO while acknowledging
the receipt of the application fixed the date for furnishing information to him as 3rd
March 2007 i.e. within 31 days, while as per section 7 (1) she should have fixed 2nd March
2007 as the date for furnishing the information.
The petitioner wrote a letter dated 20.3.07 to the SPIO stating that as she violated
section 7(1) of the said act by fixing 3.3.07 as the date for furnishing information
and as the petitioner received the letter dated 20.2.07 of SPIO communicating him the
cost to be paid only on 10.3.07 i.e. 30 days after the receipt of his application on
1.2.07 he should be given information free of cost. He further stated that the SPIO
while rejecting his plea for furnishing information free of cost informed him that the
intervening period between the date of dispatch of intimation of cost and the date of
payment of cost is to be excluded for calculation of statutory period of 30 days . But
as he received the letter asking him to deposit the cost for information only on 10.3.07
there was no question of his depositing the cost for information and hence the question
of intervening period did not arise for calculation of the statutory limit of 30 days. He
wrote again on 29.5.07 stating that the SPIO’s interpretation of the meaning of intervening
period was right but her stand on furnishing information with cost was untenable in this
case as he did not deposit the cost after receipt of the intimation for payment of cost and
hence the question of intervening period did not arise.
The Commission received the petition on 15.6.07 and sent it to the Commissioner & Secretary,
Finance Department, Government of Assam requesting him to treat it as the first appeal under
section 19 (1) of the RTI Act. The Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department disposed the
appeal rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter on 16.8.07 the petitioner submitted
an appeal to this Commission which was received on 17.8.07. Hence this appeal case.
Submission of the parties
The appellant Shri Rakshit while reiterating his contention in the petition dated 16.8.07
stated before the Commission that the intimation of cost amounting to Rs. 1776 was dispatched
by the SPIO of Finance Department and the letter of intimation dated 20.2.07 was received on
10.3.07 i.e. after 8 days from the date of expiry of statutory period of 30 days. He submitted
that there was no scope for condonation of the act of failure on the part of the SPIO to supply
the requisite information within the specified period of 30 days as per section 7(1) of the RTI
Act, 2005. Also in the said letter there was no clear description of information for the purpose
of deposit of cost. He further stated that the SPIO completely failed to supply the information
within the statutory period of 30 days and thereby violated of section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. He
also stated that the contention of the SPIO in her letter dated 11.4.07 that the prayer for
supplying information free of cost was rejected on the ground that the intervening period
between the date of receipt of application and the date of dispatch of the intimation for cost
was 18 days which was less than the period of 30 days. He submitted that it was the duty of
SPIO to inform him about the cost within the statutory period of 30 days and furnish the
information within the said period. However the SPIO failed to inform him about the cost
within the statutory time limit and as such he was entitled to get the information free of
cost. He also stated that the decision dated 11.4.07 of the SPIO was upheld by the Commissioner
& Secretary, Finance Department which was violative of section 7 (1) and 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Hence he submitted the second appeal before the Commission.
Ms. Begum, SPIO of the Finance Department submitted before the Commission that on receipt of
the application of Shri Rakshit on 1.2.07 she wrote a letter of acknowledgement to him on the
same date informing the petitioner that if the application was not rejected under section 7
of the said Act the cost intimated to him would have to be deposited for supplying information
on or before 3.3.07. Again on receipt of the application of Sri Rakshit dated 27.1.07 she
informed Sri Rakshit that Rs. 1776/- was to be paid by him and he should deposit the cost
by 27.2.07 positively so that the information required by him could be supplied to him. Again
she wrote a letter to Shri Rakshit in response to his petition dated 27.1.07 requesting her to
furnish the information free of cost wherein she stated that as the period of intervening between
the date of dispatch of the information of cost and the date of payment of cost by him is
excluded for the purpose of calculating the statutory period of 30 days, his prayer dated
27.1.07 and 20.3.07 for supply of information free of cost was rejected and he was to deposit
the cost.
The Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department stated that on receipt of the petition of
Shri Rakshit as sent to him by the Commission he called for the records from the SPIO and on
examination of the records and hearing the SPIO he found that the decision of the SPIO was
in conformity with the relevant section of law and there was no infirmity in her order dated
11.4.07 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner since he was duly intimated the cost for providing
information with the request to deposit the same well before the expiry of statutory period of
30 days. He however admitted that the applicant was not heard at the time of disposing the petition.
Observation of the Commission
The Commission examined the register produced by the SPIO and found that the letter dated 20.2.07
issued by the SPIO to Shri Rakshit was sent by post from the Central Registry of Assam Secretariat
on 21.2.07 and there was no delay in the dispatch of the said letter although the appellant received
it only on 10.3.07. Hence the SPIO could not be held responsible for the delay in the receipt of
this letter. The contention of the appellant that it was the responsibility of the SPIO to furnish
the information within the stipulated time, that he did not receive intimation about the cost within
30 days and hence there was no question of excluding the period intervening between the dispatch of
the said information about the cost and the payment of fees was based on an errorless reading of
Section 7 (3)(a) of the RTI Act. The Commission was of the view that the SPIO did dispatch the
intimation about the cost within the stipulated time and she could not be held responsible for
late receipt of the intimation. Hence the Commission could not accept the contention of the
appellant that there was delay in intimating him regarding the cost for furnishing information.
The SPIO & the 1 st Appellate Authority correctly interpreted the provision of Section 7 (3)
(a) of the RTI Act in so far as the exclusion of the intervening days from the time limit of 30
days was concerned.
The Commission however found that the SPIO should have informed the appellant while intimating the
cost of the information that he had the right to request for a review of the decision on the amount
of fees as provided under section 7 (3)(b) of the Act. Likewise the 1 st Appellate Authority should
have informed the appellant about the hearing of his case on 1 st appeal to enable the appellant
to present his case. These minor omissions however did not vitiate the interpretation of the provision
of Section 7(3)(b) by both the SPIO and 1 st Appellate Authority. Also the Appellant had been given
full opportunity to present his case in this appeal and he did it meticulously.
Decision of the Commission
In view of the above and considering all facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission
decided to reject the appeal of the appellant under section 19(8)(d).
The appeal therefore stands rejected.
Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.
Sd/
(Dr. B K Gohain)
State Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.
Authenticated true copy
(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.
CC:
1. Shri K V Eapen, IAS, Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Deptt. Govt. of Assam, Dispur.
2. The SPIO of Finance Department, Dispur.
3. Shri A.K. Rakshit, Law Secretary, Advisory Board, AGSS, Barama, Nalbari
4. The DIPR, Dispur, Assam
5. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan.
6. Office file.
Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam