The complainant filed a petition before the Public Authority on 27 March 2005, to obtain information about the construction of two roads in her locality.

As there was no response from the public authority the petitioner visited the public authority office on 15 June 2006, to ascertain if any action had been taken on her petition but no one in the office could tell her anything about it nor was she given any advice or guidance as to how she should proceed for obtaining the information.

On 15 June 2006, she filed a complaint before this Commission under section 18 of the RTI Act 2005. A notice was accordingly issued to the State Public Information Officer of the PWD office or in his absence to the Chief Engineer, PWD, (Roads) asking him to appear before the Commission on 5.7.2006 to explain the position. A copy of the notice was also issued to the petitioner for presenting her case.

On receipt of the notice the Chief Engineer, PWD informed the petitioner that the construction and maintenance of the road in question was not within his jurisdiction and therefore furnishing any information by him did not arise. The petitioner through a letter dated 27th June, 2006 to the Commission accused the Public Authority of violating the provisions of the RTI Act by not taking action on her petition under section 6.

The Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) and three representatives of the North East Network an NGO spearheading the RTI Act campaign represented the petitioner in her absence duly authorized by her.

During hearing the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) maintained that the required information of the roads concerned i.e. J.N. Baruah Lane and C.K. Agarwalla Road Jorpukhuri, Guwahati were not under his jurisdiction and therefore the information could not be furnished. He also mentioned that he had meanwhile briefed his State Public Information Officers on the RTI Act and also opened a counter in his office where the public could submit the petition under the Right to Information Act. He assured that every effort has been made to give information to the public in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
The petitioner's representatives stressed the fact that public authority had violated the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 by not transferring the petition to the concerned authority as required under section 6(3) of the Act. They also stated that there was no notice board or any information available in the office on the designation of the State Public Information Officers nor was there any disclosures about functioning of the office which constituted the violation of section 5 and 4 respectively of the Act. They further pointed out that by not providing any information within the period of 30 days the Public Authority failed to comply with the mandate under section 7 of the Act.


After hearing the parties concerned the Commission found that the Public Authority has indeed failed to comply with the provisions section 4,5,6(3) and 7 of the RTI Act. No action was taken by the Public authority to inform the public about the functioning of his office either by placing the details in the notice board or in the website as required U/S. 4.

Though the Chief Engineer stated that he had designated the Public Information Officers but on the day the petitioner visited the office there was absolutely no information about it nor could anyone in office help the petitioner to obtain information. It was a clear violation of section 5.

The Public Authority also failed to comply with the requirement under section 6 (3) by not transferring the petition to the concerned public authority in this case to the Guwahati Municipal Corporation for furnishing information.
The Public Authority again failed to comply with the provisions of section 7 by failing to respond to the petitioner within the time limit prescribed.

The Chief Engineer, PWD accepted his fault and mentioned that the act being new its provisions were not known to him and his staff and that his failure was not deliberate or intentional.


The Commission considered all aspects and observed that there was lack of awareness about the provision of the act not only amongst the public but also amongst the government functionaries. It is absolutely necessary that appropriate programmes are made to familiarize the public and the government functionaries with the provisions of Right to Information Act as laid down under section 26 of the act. Unless it is done people will remain ignorant about their Right to Information and objectives of the Act will never be achieved.

The submission by the Chief Engineer, PWD was accepted by the Commission with the warning that the lapses as noticed should not recur and also that any public wanting information from his office should be facilitated with due courtesy and promptness to obtain the same. As this is the first instance in which the Public Authority was summoned by the Commission and the Act itself being new in the State no penal action U/S 18 (b) & (c) & 20 was ordered. The Public Authority shall forthwith transfer the petition to the concerned Public Authority U/S 6 (3) and also comply with the provisions of Section 4 & 5 of the RTI Act. He shall report confirmation of these orders within 15 days from today i.e. 5.7.06.

A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Commissioner & Secretary, AR &T Department for appropriate action by all the Public Authorities of the State, in particular, for compliance with the mandates of sections 4,5,6, 7 & 26 of the RTI Act, 2005.