JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The dispute in this petition narrows down to the controversy as to whether the petitioner, who has been found entitled to receive the information as per the order passed in second appeal on 7.11.2016, is to be provided on payment of additional fee or is to be provided free of cost. The challenge raised is to the order dated 1.2.2017 with a prayer to quash the same. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Public Information Officer who was obliged to provide the information erroneously, rejected the application of the petitioner and in spite of having succeeded in the second appeal on 7.11.2016, the information was not supplied within the period of 30 days as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even thereafter, that is upon the decision dated 7.11.2016 the situation remains the same. The petitioner is entitled for supply the entire information free of cost after expiry of 30 days. 4. Replying to the said submissions, Sri Shikhar Anand submits that keeping in view the nature of the provisions of Section 7(1) and 7(6) of the Act, the said period of limitation in such a fact situation, would not be available to the petitioner inasmuch as the Public Information Officer had rejected the application on 28.12.2015 itself which was within the period of 30 days. Consequently, if the information was not required to be tendered and the jurisdiction had been exercised by the Public Information Officer well within the time prescribed, then in that event, the petitioner cannot claim receipt of information free of cost in the circumstances of the present case where the second appeal was decided on 7.11.2016. More-so where the petitioner himself had filed a recall application that came to be disposed of on 1.2.2017. He, therefore, submits that the claim of the petitioner being not tenable, there is no infirmity in the impugned order nor the petitioner can claim the information free of cost. 5. We have considered the submissions raised and Section 7(1) and 7(6) of the Act, 2005 are extracted here-in-under: “7. He, therefore, submits that the claim of the petitioner being not tenable, there is no infirmity in the impugned order nor the petitioner can claim the information free of cost. 5. We have considered the submissions raised and Section 7(1) and 7(6) of the Act, 2005 are extracted here-in-under: “7. Disposal of request.—(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request. either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9: Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions, leaves no room for doubt that the information has to be provided within 30 days of the application. The admitted position is that the application was rejected within the period of 30 days. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a first appeal that was rejected on 4.2.2016 and then filed the second appeal which was allowed on 7.11.2016 to the extent indicated therein. However, while allowing the second appeal, the State Information Commissioner proceeded to direct that the information shall be tendered to the petitioner on payment of additional fee to be calculated as per Rules. 7. It is this part of the order by which the petitioner is aggrieved after the recall was rejected on 1.2.2017 contending that the Public Information Officer was found to have not supplied the information to which the petitioner was entitled and, therefore, after the expiry of 30 days of moving of the application, the information has now to be supplied free of cost to the petitioner. 8. In the instant case, what has happened is that the order had been passed rejecting the application within 30 days. 8. In the instant case, what has happened is that the order had been passed rejecting the application within 30 days. Thus, after the rejection of the application, there was no obligation on the part of the P.I.O. to provide the information. This situation is however different where the second appeal of the petitioner has been allowed on 7.11.2016. The question is whether the limitation period of 30 days as provided for under Section 7(1) will continue to be available to the petitioner after the said order or not. 9. We find that the Public Information Officer has to be compulsorily present according to the relevant procedure of appeals provided under the 2012 Rules. It is not the case of the respondents that the P.I.O. was not informed or was not aware of the order dated 7.11.2016. It is otherwise also not possible inasmuch as if the appeal has to be heard in the presence of the Public Information Officer, then the presumption is that the Public Information Officer had full and complete knowledge of the order dated 7.11.2016. The providing of information of the passing of the order, therefore is not an obligation on the part of the petitioner. The period of limitation of 30 days in our opinion will start w.e.f. 7.11.2016 which is the date of allowing the appeal. The information, admittedly, has not been tendered to the petitioner till date. 10. Consequently, in view of what has been held by us here-in-above, the period of 30 days would start running from 7.11.2016 and after the expiry of the aforesaid period, the petitioner is entitled to the entire information as directed under the order dated 7.11.2016 free of cost. We are accordingly allow this petition, quash the order dated 1.2.2017 and direct the Public Information Officer to provide the said information to the petitioner forthwith free of cost. Petition is allowed with the said directions.