RTI fee liability depends on correct classification of information and mandatory free supply after delay

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, information not furnished within thirty days must be supplied free of charge under Section 7(6). The fee rules also distinguish priced material from other material: only items actually priced for sale can attract sale-price recovery, while a building plan for a particular premises is not priced material and can only be charged at actual cost. On that basis, a demand for fee on requested sanctioned plans was inconsistent with the Rules and unsustainable where the statutory time limit had not been met.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised for supplying sanctioned plans under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was valid when the information was not furnished within thirty days, and whether the requested plans could be treated as priced material for charging sale price instead of actual cost.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 7 required information to be furnished within thirty days, and Section 7(6) provided that where the public authority failed to comply with that time limit, the information had to be supplied free of charge. The fee rules distinguished between priced material and other than priced material. Priced material contemplated publications, printed matter, maps, plans and similar items only where they were actually priced for sale. A building plan for a particular premises was not shown to be a sale item and therefore could not be treated as priced material. For such information, only the actual cost could be recovered. The demand was therefore based on an characterization of the material and the fee calculation adopted was inconsistent with the Rules.

Conclusion: The demand for Rs. 44,787/- was unsustainable. The petitioner was entitled to the information in accordance with the Rules, and, because the statutory time limit had not been complied with, free of cost under Section 7(6) of the Act.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to furnish the requested information in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 must be supplied free of charge where the public authority fails to comply with the prescribed time limit, and a demand for fee can be sustained only if it is levied under the correct category recognised by the applicable fee rules.

---