Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1056 (GAU)

Nirupam Banerjee v. State of Assam

2017-08-07

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr.A.R Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.S. Roy, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner, who is a journalist by profession, in course of his regular activities came to learn that there were certain anomalies in the spending of the pubic fund by the District Rural Development Agency, Haflong while implementing the different schemes for the period of 2001-02 to 2006-07. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.11.2009 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Project Director, DRDA. The said application was duly made in Form-A and the requisite fees for the purpose had also been paid. 3. In the application, the petitioner seeks the information regarding the total amount of fund both cash and rice received by DRDA, Haflong from the Government of India and Government of Assam under various programmes like SGRY/SGSY/DHG/IAY/MLA Area Development Fund/MP Area Development Fund/NFBC/Health Care/Old Age Pension/EFC/Backward Class Development Fund/IBS/FDR etc in detail for the year 2001-02 to 2006-07. The petitioner also wanted the information of the action plan/list of sanctioned schemes, list of beneficiaries under the aforesaid schemes for the said period. Further, the petitioner also asked for the information as regards the total amount of cash and rice, which were distributed/utilized by the DRDA Haflong for that period and also the amount of cash and rice and other materials allotted/released to the Zila Construction Committee/Zila Parishad/Blocks/Gaon Panchayats etc. 4. The State respondent authorities have filed an affidavit in opposition dated 16.08.2011, wherein an order dated 15.03.2010 of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Assam had been annexed as Annexure-IV. The said order provides that the petitioner by appearing before the Commission, had made a statement that he had received only a part of the information he had sought for, whereas on the other hand, the Project Director, DRDA had stated that due to the voluminous nature of the information sought for by the petitioner covering details of all such implementation of the project, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Project Director, DRDA and collect the information. 5. 5. Accordingly, the Commission had accepted the explanation of the Project Director, DRDA with a direction that since the Muster Rolls, Cash Books etc constituted voluminous records covering seven years, the petitioner be allowed to inspect the same and take notes of such records as he might wish to as envisaged by Section 7(9) r/w Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 6. The aforesaid order of the State Information Commissioner, Assam does not appear to be an arbitrary order in the view of this Court. If the information sought for is voluminous in nature, it cannot be expected that the concerned authority handover the entire information to the petitioner. Therefore, a more reasonable approach would be for the petitioner to go to the office of the Project Director, DRDA and take notes of whatever information he desires. 7. However, it is provided that out of the voluminous record, if the petitioner desires to have copies of some particular documents, he shall inform the Project Director, DRDA and on the required cost being paid, the copies of such information shall be made available to the petitioner. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.