Disposed

Anwarul Haque v. the Assam State Information Commission and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2022WP(C)/2209/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders directing him to provide information under RTI Act 2005, citing loss of office and records. Court held these cannot invalidate the order, directing the information seeker to deposit fees for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directing the person seeking information to deposit Rs. 1,000/- statutory fees to enable the petitioner to provide the sought information.

Anwarul Haque Vs the Assam State Information Commission… — RTI and Transparency | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010008952014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2209/2014

¶5

ANWARUL HAQUE

¶6

S/O LT. FOYEZ UDDIN AHMED, CHAIRMAN, MAIMAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, ASSAM, DWARANDA, SIX MILE, P.O. PANJABARI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE ASSAM STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND 2 ORS ASSAM, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, DISPUR, GHY-6, PIN-781006, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSAM STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

¶9

2:THE ASSAM STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-6

¶10

3:M.C. MALAKAR SINCE RETIRED

¶11

ASSAM STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER C/O HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J M A CHOUDHURY

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

Page No.# 2/4

ORDER

01.09.2022

Heard Mr. JMA Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Deka, learned counsel for the respondents in the Assam State Information Commission.

¶20

In this writ petition, the order dated 16.09.2013 of the State Information Commissioner, Assam as well as the order dated 03.12.2013 again of the State Information Commissioner Assam are assailed. The subsequent order dated 10.03.2014 of the State Information Commissioner, Assam is also assailed. The aforesaid orders impugned, of the State Information Commissioner arises out of the applications made by Sri Shamim Ahmed seeking certain information under the RTI Act 2005. Although the person seeking the information is not a respondent in this proceeding, but Mr. N Ahmed, learned counsel is present and states that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the person seeking information.

¶21

The petitioner, who was the Chairman of Maimal Development Council, Assam is aggrieved by the orders of the State Information Commissioner to the extent that although there are directions to the petitioner to provide certain information sought for by aforesaid Shamim Ahmed, but presently the petitioner is neither the Chairman of the Maimal Development Council, nor the Maimal Development Council has retained the records from which the information sought for could have been provided by the petitioner.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

It is on these two grounds that the orders of the State Information Commissioner are sought to be assailed. Apart from that a technical reason is also sought to be raised that the appeal filed by the person seeking information against the refusal to provide the information by the Public Information Officer was not within time and, therefore, a further appeal before the State Information Commissioner also could not have been filed. If the appeal filed against the refusal by the Public Information Officer was not maintainable, it was for the petitioner to have taken a stand at that stage. Once the proceeding is already over and the order passed in such proceeding is assailed before the State Information Commissioner, it will be inappropriate to allow the said ground to be taken in the present writ proceeding rather than considering the matter otherwise on its merit.

¶24

The reason that the petitioner is now presently not the Chairman of the Maimal Development Council and that the records are not available with him cannot be a reason under the provisions of the RTI Act to interfere with the order of the State Information Commissioner. As otherwise, for all other purposes, the said order is a valid order under the law. If the petitioner has to comply with the order of the State Information Commissioner to provide any information and the records are not available before him it would be for the petitioner to take up with such authorities who have the records, get access to it and provide the information. The inconvenience that the petitioner may have to face cannot be a reason to declare the order of the State Information Commissioner to be illegal and void which may not require any compliance and such view is taken, it would render the RTI Act to be ineffective and

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

unimplementable.

¶27

Mr. JMA Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to obtain the information there is also a requirement on the part of the person seeking the information to deposit a fees amounting to Rs.1000/- as expenditure. Accordingly as Mr. N Ahmed learned counsel who has instruction to appear on behalf of the person seeking the information is present in the Court, we direct the person seeking the information to deposit the statutory amount of Rs.1000/- and upon such amount being deposited, the petitioner may act upon the information sought for and do the needful.

¶28

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Anwarul Haque v. the Assam State Information Commission and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwarul Haque v. the Assam State Information Commission and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balen Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pankaj Hira Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pradip Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S R a Mazumder and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S R a Mazumder and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.