Judgment 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the State Information Commission dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner, when the grievance of the petitioner was that to certain information sought for from the PIO-cum-Executive Engineer, Central Works Division, there had been a demand by PIO for making a payment of Rs. 1,01,400/- towards expenses for meeting with the demand. The petitioners contention is that the demand is an attempt to scuttle the process of obtaining information under the Act and the tall demand has been made deliberately to prevent the petitioner from gaining access to the information which had sought. According to him, the demand conflicts with the Punjab Right to Information Rules and particularly Rule 5(2). 2. The information which the petitioner has sought for is set out in Form-A which reads as under :- "4. Description of information required 1. Detail of payment made against Patch Works of the roads as per Performa overleaf. 2. Name the Petrol Pumps you have cleared during the period. 3. What norms you are to inspect/follow while clearing the Petrol Pumps?" 3. The response by the PIO to the demand setting out the details of expenditure incurred for supply of required information is as under :- Detail of expenditure to be incurred for supply of required information. Sr. No. Description Amount 1. Surveyor for measuring the patches. 2 No. @ Rs. 18000/- month. Rs. 36000/- 2. Helper for surveyor 2 No. for two months @ Rs. 150/- day. Rs. 18000/- 3. Special staff for preparation of information due to shortage of regular staff. Two Nos. for two months @ Rs. 15000/- each Rs. 30000/- 4. Papers for preparation of information Rs. 200/- 5. Typing charges Rs. 5000/- 6. Metallic tape for surveyor Rs. 200/- 7. Photostat charges Rs. 10000/- 8. Stationery for surveyor Rs. 2000/- Rs. 101400/- 4. In my view, the response by the PIO is wholly improper. If the requirement of the petitioner is for a detail of payment made against patch works of the roads mentioned in the pro forma, the information ought to be available if any patch work had been done on the roads specified in the pro forma. 2000/- Rs. 101400/- 4. In my view, the response by the PIO is wholly improper. If the requirement of the petitioner is for a detail of payment made against patch works of the roads mentioned in the pro forma, the information ought to be available if any patch work had been done on the roads specified in the pro forma. The answer could, therefore, have been only the details of such payments of the persons to whom the payment had been made and the amounts that had been disbursed on various dates from 1-1-2008 to 29-7-2008. The question of engaging two surveyors for measuring the patches and seeking for reimbursement of likely expenditure of Rs. 18,000/- per month for two persons, is meaningless. A complainant cannot be mulcted with any cost of measuring the patches or employing the surveyors. The complainant is not a person who is claiming remuneration for doing patch works on behalf of the P.W.D. Same way the helper for the surveyor for whom Rs. 18,000/- has been demanded, is equally untenable. Yet another item of expenditure which has been sought to be collected from the petitioner is the cost that may have to be incurred for deploying special staff for preparation of information due to shortage of regular staff. 5. The information that has to be supplied is enjoined by the Right to Information Act as a public duty. We should move to a situation where instead of having to demand and secure, our public institutions must be run so transparently that information shall become available even without demanding the same. In an ideal situation, there shall be periodical dissemination of information of the expenditure incurred by every public authority. The details of income and expenditure of a public body are not merely for an audit staff to see within closed doors. They shall be always open to the public eye and evoke the confidence of the people that the authorities function in a new paradigm that has transparency as their hallmark. If staff will have to be employed for giving the information, it shall be wholly their own responsibility and the remuneration to be paid to the staff for furnishing information is not the expenditure that can be loaded on a person seeking for information. Other than what are provided there under the Rules, the public authority will have no right to demand. Other than what are provided there under the Rules, the public authority will have no right to demand. Rule 5(2) details the charges that could be collected from a person seeking information, is reproduced as under :- "(2) The following fee shall be charged for providing information under sub-section (1) of Section 7, namely :- (a) rupees two for each page (in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied; (b) actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper; (c) actual cost or price for samples or models; (d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each fifteen minutes (or fraction thereof) thereafter; (e) for information provided in diskette or floppy rupees fifty per diskette or floppy; and (f) for information provided in printed form at the price fixed for such publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication." The cost of providing copies in A-3 or A-4 sizes is Rs. 2 and this shall include the typing charges for each page. The demand for typing charges of Rs. 5,000/- is against impermissible. The charges for providing metallic tape to surveyor is also impermissible. The details of expenditure set out by the Executive Engineer is, in my view, a deliberate act to stultify information. The Information Commission ought to have allowed the appeal filed and ought to have directed the information which the petitioner was seeking without having to pay the amount as irresponsibly demanded by the Information Officer. 6 The order dated 12-12-2008 of the State Information Commission is set aside. The 3rd respondent shall now re-work the costs in the light of what is stated in Rule 5(2) and make a fresh demand within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and on payment of the amount, the information shall be supplied within a further period of one week. 7. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms with cost assessed at Rs. 10,000/- which shall be recovered personally from the 3rd respondent.