P.Kannan vs Andaman And Nicobar Administration & Others

The appellant/writ petitioner in the instant appeal challenges the order dated July 16, 2019 passed by a Learned Single Judge in the writ petition being W.P. No. 472 of 2019. The only grievance ventilated by the appellant/writ petitioner before us is that the appellant/writ petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking certain information and documents. Neither the information nor the document sought for were provided within 30 days from the date of application and as such the same are to be supplied free of cost as envisaged under Section 7(6) of the said Act but the authorities have demanded further fees.

We find that this point was not urged before the learned Single Judge. Ordinarily, we would not have allowed this point to be urged but to avoid any controversy considering that there is some legal element involved, we allowed the appellant/writ petitioner to urge the said point.

On perusal of the impugned order wherein the information sought for has been set out, we find that the same are not only voluminous but reaches several thousand pages. The appellant/writ petitioner says that after he had applied for the necessary information, no answer was given by the competent authority within a period of thirty days from receiving such application as required under Section 7(1) of the said Act. In such circumstances, the appellant/writ petitioner should be supplied the information and the documents sought for without any fees, but the authority concerned has asked the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.12,53,450/- for obtaining such information and documents.

The application under the said Act was made on 16th September, 2015. The 30 days time limit provided under section 7(1) is subject to the provisions of section 5(2) and 6(3). Moreover, under section 7(3) of the said Act where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fees, the concerned authority shall send an intimation to the person making a request to deposit the money by providing the details of the further fees so required. The time period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the thirty days referred to in section 7(1) of the said Act.

In the instant case, the competent authority, after looking into the information sought for in terms of Rule 4 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred as the said rules) informed the appellant/writ petitioner that the information and the documents sought for can be collected upon depositing a sum of Rs.12,53,450.00.

The point sought to be urged that after expiry of thirty days, if no answer is given by the authority concerned, the information sought for should be supplied free of cost is of no substance in the facts of this case. In the instant case, as records reveal and as pointed out by the respondent, the application was not made to the appropriate authority at the initial stage. After receiving the application, the addressee had sent the same to the appropriate authority which brings the issue under the provisions of section 6(3) of the said Act. The appropriate authority after due consideration of the application had decided to provide information subject to payment of further fees which brings the matter within the ambit of section 7(3) of the said Act. The concerned authority in compliance of Rule 4 of the said Rules read with the provision of section 7(3) of the Act had sent the intimation to deposit further fees with detailed computation. Considering all these provisions we hold that the case of the appellant/petitioner does not come within the ambit of section 7(5) of the said Act. The computation has also been found to be correct by the Central Information Commission (in short C.I.C).

The learned Single Judge, after considering the merits of the writ petition, has dismissed the same but has left open the option for the appellant/writ petitioner to obtain the information upon paying requisite costs at the present writ. We find no infirmity in the order and as such there is no scope to interfere therewith.

In such circumstances, we negate the point urged in the appeal by the appellant/writ petitioner. The appeal is liable to and is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.