Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 299 (GAU)

Tapas Bezbaruah v. State of Assam

2018-02-19

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. M.R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 and Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam. 2. The petitioner made an application under the RTI before the respondent No.8 being the Principal of Azitullah Public Higher Secondary School for providing him with the information as regards the total marks obtained by him in the written test, computer-cum-type writing test and viva voce separately as well as the marks obtained by the five candidates who have been declared to be qualified in the written test. Further information was also sought for as regards the marks in HSLC and HS examination of all the five candidates as well as the details of selection procedure and marks distribution for the post of LDA of Azitullah Public Higher Secondary School. 3. As the required information was not provided, the petitioner made an application before the First Appellate Authority being the Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara. The Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara had forwarded the RTI application of the petitioner to the Principal of Azitullah Public Higher Secondary School on 31.10.2017 for doing the needful. 4. The said information that the First Appellate Authority by the communication dated 31.10.2017 had required the Principal of the school to do the needful was informed to the petitioner on 18.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Secretary, State Information Commissioner, Assam on 21.12.2017 5. This writ petition has been preferred on the grievance that the State Information Commissioner had not acted upon the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is dated 21.12.2017. 6. Mr. M.R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the authorities have provided the petitioner with his own marks, but have not informed him about the marks obtained by the other candidates, more particularly, the respondent No.10. As a statutory appeal under Section 19 (3) was preferred by the petitioner before the State Information Commissioner, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to decide the said appeal within a period of 30 days or within such extended period which shall not exceed a total of 45 days from the date of filing. 7. As a statutory appeal under Section 19 (3) was preferred by the petitioner before the State Information Commissioner, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to decide the said appeal within a period of 30 days or within such extended period which shall not exceed a total of 45 days from the date of filing. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the State Information Commission shall give due consideration to the appeal of the petitioner dated 21.12.2017 filed under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 8. The direction of this Court to consider the appeal shall not be construed to be a direction to provide the required information to the petitioner and the State Information Commissioner shall decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merit and also by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.