Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 31.03.2015 seeking details of all sale deeds registered between 2006 and 31.03.2015 from the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ahmednagar. The Public Information Officer (PIO), respondent No. 4, responded vide letter dated 10.04.2015, calculating the fee at Rs. 10,400 for 5,200 pages at Rs. 2 per page and offering inspection. The letter was dispatched on 23.04.2015 through ordinary post and was received by the petitioner on 19.05.2015, beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act. Claiming the benefit of Section 7(6), the petitioner sought the information free of cost. The first appeal before the Joint District Registrar was dismissed, upholding the fee demand. In the second appeal, the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur, held that the petitioner received the letter belatedly and was therefore entitled to information free of cost under Section 7(6) but, considering the voluminous nature, allowed inspection and free supply of only 100 pages. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, asserting that all 5,200 pages should be provided free. The High Court examined the scheme of the Act, particularly Sections 6 and 7. Section 7(1) requires the PIO to provide information or reject the request within 30 days. Where information is to be supplied on payment of fee, Section 7(5) applies, and Section 7(6) contains a non-obstante clause dispensing with fee if the authority fails to meet the time limit in sub-section (1). The court found that the PIO had taken a decision and communicated the fee requirement by a letter dated 10.04.2015, dispatched on 23.04.2015, well within the 30-day period which would have expired on 30.04.2015. The delay in receipt was due to postal transmission and not attributable to any failure or inaction by the PIO. Hence, the precondition of failure by the authority under Section 7(1) was not satisfied, and Section 7(6) was not attracted. The State Information Commissioner's order granting even partial free supply was erroneous. The High Court held that the PIO had discharged his obligation by intimating the fee within time, and the petitioner was not entitled to any free information. The writ petition was allowed, and the Commissioner’s order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Supply of Information - Free Information under Section 7(6) - Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 7(1), (5), (6) - The Public Information Officer communicated the fee amount within 30 days of the application; the letter was dispatched on 23.04.2015 and received by the applicant after the 30-day period on 19.05.2015. Held that the PIO had complied with the time limit by taking a decision and dispatching it within 30 days; postal delay not attributable to the authority did not amount to failure under Section 7(1). Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to free information. The order of the State Information Commissioner granting 100 pages free was set aside. (Paras 7-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the requested information free of cost under Section 7(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on account of delay in receipt of the communication from the Public Information Officer regarding the fees payable.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur (respondent No. 2B) was set aside. The Court held that the PIO had intimated the fee requirement within 30 days and the petitioner was not entitled to free information under Section 7(6) of the Act. Rule was made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 7(6) of RTI Act entitles free information only if public authority fails to comply with time limits under Section 7(1)
- intimation of fee within 30 days amounts to compliance
- even if notice is received after expiry due to postal delay
- mere delay in receipt does not constitute failure of authority
- the time limit is for taking decision and dispatching communication
- not for receipt
- Section 7(1) permits fee-based supply or rejection within 30 days
- non-obstante clause in Section 7(6) triggers only upon proven non-compliance by authority
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 20
Writ Petition No.15187 of 2019
Smt. Bharati H. Dangre, J.
Mr. Amol A. Kokad, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Information Commissioner passed in a second appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order of the State Information Commissioner granting only 100 pages free of cost and instead sought complete free supply of all 5,200 pages of the requested information.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved that despite the delay in receipt of the fee intimation communication, he was not granted all information free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, but was only allowed inspection and free supply of 100 pages.
Previous Decisions
The first appeal before the Joint District Registrar, Ahmednagar was dismissed, upholding the PIO's decision to charge fees. The second appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur was partly allowed, granting inspection and 100 pages free of cost due to delayed receipt of the fee intimation.
Issues
Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the requested information free of cost under Section 7(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on account of delay in receipt of the communication from the Public Information Officer regarding the fees payable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the intimation regarding fees was received only on 19.05.2015, beyond the 30-day period, and therefore the PIO failed to comply with the time limit, entitling him to free information under Section 7(6).
Respondents argued that the PIO communicated the fee decision within the prescribed 30-day period (letter dated 10.04.2015, dispatched on 23.04.2015) and the postal delay was beyond the authority’s control, hence no failure to attract Section 7(6).
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 7(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, an applicant becomes entitled to information free of charge only when the public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7. If the Public Information Officer communicates the fee payable within 30 days of receiving the request, the fact that the communication reaches the applicant after the expiry of that period due to postal delays does not constitute a failure by the authority. The obligation of the PIO under Section 7(1) is to take a decision and dispatch the intimation within thirty days; actual receipt by the applicant is not the operative event for triggering the free-of-charge provision.
Judgment Excerpts
The Second Appellate Authority has rendered a finding to the effect that the letter has been received by the petitioner belatedly. I do not see that this reasoning of the Appellate Authority would justify its decision to allow the appeal of the petitioner for the simple reason that sub-section (1) of Section 7 contemplates that on receipt of the request … either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request.
Section 7(6) of the Act … begins with non-obstante clause and set out that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making the request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).
The intimation to the applicant about the charges for obtaining the information was communicated to him vide letter dated 10.4.2015 and dispatched on 23.4.2015, which was well within the time contemplated under Section 7(1) of the Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act on 31.03.2015 seeking details of sale deeds. The Public Information Officer (respondent No. 4) communicated the fee requirement on 10.04.2015, dispatched on 23.04.2015. The petitioner received the letter on 19.05.2015. Aggrieved by the fee demand, he filed a first appeal before the Joint District Registrar, Ahmednagar (respondent No. 3), which was dismissed. He then filed a second appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur (respondent No. 2B). The Commissioner allowed the appeal in part, granting inspection and 100 pages free of cost. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court heard the matter on 25.01.2022 and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Commissioner’s order.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 6, Section 7(1), Section 7(5), Section 7(6), Section 8, Section 9
