Court Orders Prompt Action on RTI Complaints, Stresses Timely Info Provision

The court directed the State Information Commission to address the complaint promptly and issue orders within 30 days of receiving the court's order, emphasizing the importance of timely information provision under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court highlighted the need for prompt action by the Public Information Officer and appellate forums, stressing that delays in addressing appeals are not excusable even without specified timeframes. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the State Information Commission on a specified date, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Failure to provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005; Failure of statutory authorities to respond to appeal and complaint.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to supply information in accordance with Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner submitted an application for information, made the required deposit, and followed the Act and Rules. However, the State Public Information Officer failed to provide the information as mandated by Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner then appealed under Section 19 of the Act but did not receive any response to the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the State Information Commission, Haryana, through a complaint, but did not receive any communication from them either.

3. The court considered the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel and examined the provisions of Sections 7(1), 19(1), and 19(3) of the Act. Section 7(1) mandates that information must be provided within 30 days of receiving the request, and if the request is to be rejected, it should also be done within the specified timeframe. Section 19 allows for appeals within 30 days of a decision or lack thereof, with a provision for a second appeal within 90 days.

4. The court noted that the petitioner did not receive the information requested, and even the appellate authority failed to decide on the appeal. Given these circumstances, the court directed the State Information Commission to address the complaint and issue orders within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the court's order.

5. Emphasizing the importance of expeditiously providing information as per the Act's spirit, the court highlighted that both the Public Information Officer and the appellate forums must act promptly. The court underscored that failure to specify a timeframe under Section 19 does not excuse delays in addressing appeals. The court stressed that the appellate forums must issue necessary directions to the Public Information Officer in line with the Act's requirements.

6. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition with directions for the State Information Commission to address the complaint promptly and ordered the petitioner to appear before the Commission on a specified date.

---