2011 (1) TMI 1240 - HC - Indian Laws

Demand of information - Petitioner instead of supplying information arbitrarily asked for extra fees - Appellate authority directed petitioner to supply documents free of costs - Held that - there is a provision under the Act/Rules, vide which, the SIC can direct the petitioner-SPIO to supply the information free of costs to Respondent - SPIO did not comply with the time-limits specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act and did not supply the information, despite specific order/letter (Annexure P3/T) of FAA. In that eventuality, the SIC was within its jurisdiction to direct the petitioner-SPIO to supply the information free of charges, vide impugned order - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Arbitrary demand of fees by the State Public Information Officer (SPIO).
2. Failure to comply with the time-limits specified in the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Jurisdiction of the State Information Commission (SIC) to direct the SPIO to provide information free of charge.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, as the SPIO, failed to provide information to the respondent despite a specific request and a postal order for fees attached. The First Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to supply the information within two days, but the petitioner again demanded an exorbitant fee. The SIC accepted the appeal and directed the petitioner to furnish the information free of charge. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing against the SIC's jurisdiction to issue such a directive.

2. The Court noted that under Section 7 of the Act, the SPIO must provide information within thirty days of receiving a request, either on payment of prescribed fees or free of charge if the time-limits are not met. Since the petitioner did not comply with the time-limits and failed to provide the information as directed, the SIC was deemed to have the authority to order the provision of information without charges. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that there was no provision for such a directive by the SIC.

3. The Court emphasized that the SIC's order only directed the petitioner to provide the information in accordance with Section 7(6) of the Act. The Court found no legal infirmity in the SIC's order that would warrant setting it aside under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As no other substantial points were raised, the Court dismissed the writ petition due to lack of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the petition, upholding the SIC's directive for the SPIO to provide information free of charge, emphasizing the importance of complying with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.