The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside an order of the State Information Commission dismissing an RTI appeal and directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Inspector of Survey and Land Records (ISLR), Pernem, to furnish the sought information free of cost, after finding clear non-compliance with the mandatory timelines under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a writ petition filed by Shri Narayan Suresh Pai, who had sought certified copies of demarcation reports, file notings, and orders passed by the ISLR, Pernem, for the period beginning 1 January 2023. The RTI application was filed on 1 September 2023.
The Court noted that the information sought was specific and ought to have been maintained in a digitised and easily accessible form, as mandated under Section 4(2) of the RTI Act. This provision requires public authorities to catalogue, index, and proactively disclose information to minimise the need for citizens to resort to RTI applications.
Despite this statutory obligation, the PIO failed to take a decision within the prescribed 30-day period under Section 7(1) of the Act. Instead of communicating a clear decision to grant or refuse information, the PIO merely asked the petitioner to visit the office and inspect records, an approach the Court held did not amount to a valid decision under the Act.
Subsequently, after intervention by the First Appellate Authority, the PIO communicated willingness to provide the information, but well beyond the statutory deadline. The Court held that such delayed compliance squarely attracted Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, which entitles an applicant to receive information free of charge where the public authority fails to adhere to timelines.
Terming the State Information Commission’s order as contrary to the RTI Act, the High Court quashed and set it aside, directing the PIO to furnish all the requested information within one week, without charging any fees.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Appearances:
Mr. Vishal Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Geetesh Shetye, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
