RANJAN NATH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Ors.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B KUMAR Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

10.05.2024 ORDER None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called. Mr. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate is present for the State Government. It appears that on the last occasion, the matter was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter relates to non-furnishing of information to the petitioner against the application preferred under the RTI Act, 2005 through his application dated 15.07.2015. Mr. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate submits that Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides appeal against non-furnishing of information sought under the said Act. He accordingly submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in terms of the alternative efficacious remedy available in law. Heard the submissions made by the respondents. Page No.# 3/6 Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “19. Appeal.—(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order. (3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Page No.# 4/6 Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party. (5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. (6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding. (8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to, (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including- (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; Page No.# 5/6 (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d) reject the application. (9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority. (10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.” It appears that any person who does not receives a decision within a specified time, or is aggrieved by the decision of the State Public Information Officer can prefer an appeal to such Officer who is senior in rank. In the present case, the petitioner having not received a decision in respect of the RTI application made, ought to have availed of the appeal remedy provided under the statute. Thus, there appears to be efficacious remedy available in law, which is not availed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid appeal provision, this Court finds that the writ petition is not maintainable. Page No.# 6/6 As such, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant