1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3818.2010 Mr. Tushar D. Mandlekar Vs. The State of Information Commissioner and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The petitioner in person. Mr. A. Joshi, AGP for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. A. B. Patil, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2010. Heard Advocate Mandlekar for the petitioner in person, AGP Joshi for respondents 2 and 3 and Advocate Patil for respondent no.1. Short contention of Shri Mandlekar is order dated 9.4.2010 passed by respondent no.1- State of Information Commissioner directing respondents 2 and 3 to provide information to petitioner within 10 days after he deposited costs required for supply of information is unsustainable. He states that alleged communication seeking additional amount for supply of information was forwarded on 24.8.2009 2 i. e. 31st day and hence as per provisions of Section 7 of Right to Information Act the petitioner is entitled to that information free of costs. The order passed the then State Chief Information Commissioner on 25.8.2006 in Appeal No.2006/325/02 is pointed out to this Court with contention that this position is recognised therein and that order is binding on respondent no.1. Learned AGP as also Advocate Patil have urged that information demanded was huge and it took time for respondents 2 and 3 to collect it and to estimate expenditure therefor. After the amount required was worked out intimation was sent immediately. Learned counsel therefore supports the impugned order and state that plausible view has been taken by State Information Commissioner and this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that information was sought on 24.7.2009. Period of 30 days from said 3 date expires on 23.8.2009. Thus 24.8.2009 on which letter demanding expenditure was forwarded to petitioner is 31st day and hence provisions of Section 7(1) of Right to Information Act in which automatically became applicable. The case of petitioner is that he has not received any communication. However, it is not necessary to look into that controversy at this stage. The impugned order of State Commissioner shows that letter was prepared on 20th August 2009 and it was posted on 24.8.2009. The date on which it was sent/forwarded is relevant and as said date is beyond 30 days, provisions of Section 7(6) automatically become applicable and entitled him to grant information free of costs. Coming to the contention that information sought for was huge and vague, that is not the reason given for not supplying the information. On the contrary, stand before State Information Commissioner was that information was ready and it was running into 900 pages, the same could have 4 been supplied to petitioner after he deposited necessary expenditure. Thus, this contention is clearly by way of afterthought and cannot be accepted. The operative part and direction to petitioner by State Information Commissioner to pay costs for procuring information is therefore contrary to law and unsustainable. The petitioner is entitled to grant of information free of costs. Similarly, he is also entitled to costs for late supply of said information. Shri Mandlekar states that the penalty stipulated in Act is Rs. 25,000/-. According to learned AGP officers were acting bonafide and in the interest of administration as there are no malafides, the penalty should not be imposed. Without recording finding again in in this respect, the petitioner is given costs of Rs. 2000/- as he is required to file present petition before this Court. The impugned order dated 9.4.2010 forwarded to the petitioner on 28th June 2010 is 5 accordingly quashed and set aside. His appeal filed before State Information Commissioner is granted. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to supply information free of costs to petitioner within a period of ten days from today. The said authority also to pay costs of RS. 2000/- to petitioner towards present petition within a period of one month from today. Writ petition is partly allowed. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE ambulkar