Dismissed¶26

Tanuja Uzir v. the Director of Land Records and Surveys

Gauhati HC19 Jul 2026WP(C)/3685/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005; Section 19(1) first appeal; alternate remedy doctrine; writ petition under Article 226 not entertained; proviso to Section 19(1) - admission of appeal beyond 30 days on sufficient cause; condonation of delay; First Appellate Authority; Section 6 RTI application unanswered; Gauhati High Court; Justice Manish Choudhury; order dated 20-07-2026; Tanuja Uzir v. Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam; WP(C)/3685/2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted on the writ petition; petitioner directed to exhaust the remedy of first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority showing sufficient cause for the delay, with the First Appellate Authority to consider the sufficiency of cause first and then the appeal on merits. ¶26

Tanuja Uzir Vs the Director of Land Records and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the petitioner has not first availed the appellate remedy under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The writ petition is not entertained because the remedy of appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act read with the proviso thereof remains available to the petitioner, who must therefore exhaust that remedy.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, it is still open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of preferring the first appeal, showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing it within time.

¶25

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files the delayed appeal, the First Appellate Authority shall first consider whether sufficient cause is shown for preferring the appeal beyond the period of limitation under Section 19(1), and if satisfied, shall thereafter proceed to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury, J.), WP(C)/3685/2026, decided 20-07-2026: The petitioner's application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 10.12.2025 before the State Public Information Officer, O/o the Director of Land Records & Survey, Assam, Guwahati, seeking information regarding a plot of land, remained unanswered till institution of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed without preferring a first appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act. Held: in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 19, whereby the First Appellate Authority may admit an appeal after expiry of the 30-day period if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause, the appellate remedy remains available to the petitioner; the writ petition was accordingly not entertained and the petitioner directed to file the first appeal showing sufficient cause, with the First Appellate Authority to first consider the sufficiency of cause for the delay and, if satisfied, to decide the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010136202026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3685/2026

¶6

TANUJA UZIR

¶7

D/O LATE MALIN CHANDRA UZIR, R/O DOTMA CHARIALI,P.O AND P.S DOTMA, DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD) ASSAM, PIN 783347

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS RAJASWA BHAWAN, RUPNAGAR, GUWAHATI 32, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SINHA,

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 20-07-2026

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent.

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition seeking to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

of the Constitution of India. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows :-

¶19

The petitioner seeking certain information regarding a plot of land, filed an application before the State Public Information Officer, O/o the Director of Land Records & Survey, Assam, Guwahati under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 10.12.2025. The petitioner has raised a grievance that after submission of the application on 10.12.2025, no information, as sought for by the petitioner, has been provided to the petitioner till the time of institution of the writ petition.

¶20

Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that as per provisions of sub-section [1] of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act [‘RTI Act’, for short], 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, may within 30 days from the expiry of such period can prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the State Public Information Officer and the petitioner has not preferred any appeal under sub-section [1] of Section 19 of the RTI Act and has directly approached this Court by the instant writ petition.

¶21

In response, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the period envisaged in Section 19[1] of the RTI Act has already expired and the petitioner has no other remedy.

¶22

The proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 19 has provided that the 1^st Appellate Authority who is authorized to admit an appeal, may admit an appeal after expiry of the period of 30 days after he is satisfied that the appellant was

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

prevented by sufficient cause from filing of the appeal within the time prescribed by Section 19[1] of the RTI Act.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid provision contained in proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 19, it is still open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of preferring an appeal showing sufficient cause showing the reason which prevented him from filing the appeal within time.

¶26

This writ petition is not entertained in view of the option still available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 19[1] of the RTI Act read with the proviso thereof. The petitioner shall, therefore, exhaust the remedy of

¶27

appeal under Section 19[1] of the RTI Act before the 1^st Appellate Authority showing sufficient cause as to what prevented him from filing the appeal in time. It is observed that if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the 1^st Appellate Authority, the 1^st Appellate Authority shall consider the reason shown by the petitioner for preferring the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section [1] of Section 19 of the RTI Act, at first, and if the 1^st Appellate Authority is of the view that the petitioner has been able to show sufficient cause for preferring the appeal with delay, then the 1^st Appellate Authority shall, thereafter, proceed to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Tanuja Uzir v. the Director of Land Records and Surveys

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanuja Uzir v. the Director of Land Records and Surveys

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sipok Dey Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Patanjali Foods Limited Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kartick Goala Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sri Nabajyoti Deka Vs the Income Tax Officer and 5 Ors.

Krishna Hazarika Alias Krishna Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sri Gopal Rai and 45 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.