CWP No. 10027 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 10027 of 2008 Date of decision 8 .4.2008 Umesh Kumar Sharda and another ..Petitioners Versus The Punjab Information Commission and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Raina Sabharwal. Advocate for Mr. APS Shergill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Govind Goel, Advocate with Mr. Mr.Deepak Garg, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4 M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated 22.6.2007 ( Annexures P.1 to P.3) passed by the Punjab Information Commission- respondent no.1 (for brevity 'the Commission) in three different complaints. The Commission has issued directions to respondent nos. 2 to 4 to furnish the petitioner with the desired information on payment of fee on account of voluminous record. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that provisions of Section 7(6) CWP No. 10027 of 2007 2 of the Right to Information Act,2005 (for brevity 'the Act') requires the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to furnish information free of charges in case the information has not been furnished within a period of 30 days. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 which are Indian Red Cross Societies have raised a preliminary objection that they cannot be considered as 'public authority' as per the definition of that expression under the Act. The afore-mentioned objection raised by the respondents was over-ruled and the Commission had proceeded to issue directions to them to supply information on payment of fee @ Rs.2/- per page as information sought was voluminous. However, the petitioner insisted on furnishing of information free of charges by placing reliance on Section 7(6) of the Act that once information has not been furnished within 30 days then such information must be given without any charges. The Commission rejected the afore- mentioned contention by observing as under: “ The complainant has made a submission that since the information in this case was required to be supplied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application as prescribed under the RTI Act, it should now be given free of charge. However, since the objections raised by the respondents were sent to the complainant within the prescribed period of 30 days and the complainant did not thereafter approach the respondents, and to day is the first hearing of the complaint which has been made in this case, when the order has been passed overruling the objections raised by the complainant, the period prescribed under Section 7 of the Act begins to run from today. Since, however, the information asked for by the CWP No. 10027 of 2007 3 complainant is very lengthy and voluminous, the plea of the respondent for giving 60 days for preparing the same is accepted and he is given time till 22.8.2007 to complete the action now required to be taken in accordance with these orders.” There is thus categorical finding that the objection raised by the respondent- societies were sent to the petitioner within the prescribed period of 30 days and thereafter they failed to approach the respondents. The period of 30 days has been found to run from the date of order i.e. 26.2.2007 which was the first date of hearing of the complaint before the Commission. Therefore, the Commission has rightly held that the information asked for by the petitioner is very lengthy and voluminous and it accordingly granted 60 days to prepare the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no interference in the well reasoned order passed by the Commission would be warranted. The objection raised by the respondent- societies were sent to the petitioner within the prescribed period of 30 days and they did not approach them. The first date of hearing before the Commission was 26.2.2007 and the objection raised was over-ruled. We do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the Commission that the period 30 days would start running under Section 7 of the Act from 26.2.2007 when the directions for furnishing information were issued because earlier period was consumed in deciding the preliminary objection as to whether the respondent- societies were 'public authority' or not. Moreover, information asked for by the petitioner is lengthy and voluminous and payment of Rs.2/- per page is not excessive. Therefore, we CWP No. 10027 of 2007 4 d find that the writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 8 .4.2008 Judge okg