9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1191 - HC - Indian LawsRTI - delay in providing the information - The petitioner submitted a reply on 19.09.2007 itself to the second respondent stating that since the information was not furnished within thirty days as required under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is entitled for the information free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the Act. Challenging the demand of the said amount, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order on 12.02.2008 dismissing the appeal, challenging which the present Writ Petition was filed. Held that - The priced material is indicated as publications printed matter, text, maps, plans, floppies, CDs, samples, models or material in any other form, which are priced, the sale price thereof. A building plan of a particular premises is not open for sale and it is not priced. Hence, it cannot be called as a priced material. In respect of other than priced material, the actual cost of the copy has to be recovered from the party. Thus, the first respondent committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the information sought by the petitioner is a priced material and also upholding the demand made by the second respondent. If it is a priced material, the sale price should have been indicated. In case of other than priced material, the actual cost should have been calculated. Either way it has nothing to do with the calculation of the amount as done by the second respondent. The respondents directed to furnish the required information to the petitioner as per the Rules provided under the Act, and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Issues:
1. Right to Information Act, 2005 - Entitlement to information free of cost under Section 7(6). 2. Validity of demand for payment of certified copies of sanctioned plans. 3. Interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.454 dated 13.10.2005. 4. Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 - Fee to be charged for providing information. Analysis: Issue 1: Right to Information Act, 2005 - Entitlement to information free of cost under Section 7(6) The petitioner, as the General Secretary of an NGO, sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The petitioner's application was not responded to within the stipulated thirty days under Section 7(1) of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner claimed entitlement to the information free of cost under Section 7(6) of the Act. The first respondent dismissed the appeal without addressing this crucial point, leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition. Issue 2: Validity of demand for payment of certified copies of sanctioned plans The petitioner challenged the demand of Rs. 44,787 for certified copies of sanctioned plans, arguing that the information should be provided free of cost due to the delay in furnishing it within the prescribed period. The first respondent upheld the demand based on G.O.Ms.No.454 dated 13.10.2005, considering the information as priced material. However, the Court found that the building plan sought by the petitioner was not a priced material, as indicated in Rule 4 of the Rules. The Court held that the first respondent erred in upholding the demand and set aside the order. Issue 3: Interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.454 dated 13.10.2005 The Court scrutinized G.O.Ms.No.454 dated 13.10.2005, which was relied upon to justify the demand for payment. The Court found that the interpretation of the rule as priced material was incorrect in the context of the information sought by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the actual cost should have been calculated for non-priced material, as per the Rules. Issue 4: Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 - Fee to be charged for providing information Rule 4 of the Rules specifies the fee to be charged for providing information under the RTI Act. The Court observed that while priced material entails the sale price, other than priced material should incur the actual cost for copies. The Court concluded that the demand made by the second respondent was not in accordance with the Rules and directed the respondents to furnish the required information to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act. In conclusion, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the first respondent, and directed the respondents to provide the information to the petitioner as per the Rules under the Act.
|
