Facts: The Petitioner, Narayan Suresh Pai, filed an application dated 01.09.2023 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI), seeking certified copies of Demarcation Reports, plans, file notings, and orders from the Inspector of Survey and Land Records (ISLR), Pernem, for the period starting 01.01.2023. The Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to communicate a decision within the statutory thirty-day period. Instead, the PIO issued a communication (received by the Petitioner on 05.10.2023) requesting the Petitioner to visit the office to inspect records and identify documents rather than providing the specific information requested. Following a direction from the First Appellate Authority on 09.11.2023, the PIO offered the information on 21.11.2023, but subject to the payment of fees.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner challenged the order dated 09.12.2024 (or 19.12.2023 as noted in paragraph 10) passed by the State Information Commission, which had dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal. The matter reached the High Court of Bombay at Goa via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue: Whether the failure of the PIO to communicate a decision within the mandatory thirty-day period under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act entitles the applicant to receive the information free of charge, and whether a request for physical inspection satisfies the PIO's obligation when specific documents are sought.
Holding: Yes, the Petitioner is entitled to the information free of charge due to the PIO's failure to adhere to statutory timelines. The Court held that the PIO's request for inspection was not a valid decision under Section 7(1).
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates public authorities to maintain records in a manner that facilitates easy access, preferably in digital form, to minimize the need for formal RTI applications. Under Section 7(1), the PIO must decide on a request within thirty days. In this case, the PIO’s response was both delayed and evasive; asking a petitioner to "identify" documents when the application was already specific constitutes a failure to exercise duty. Furthermore, as per the proviso to Section 7(6), where a public authority fails to comply with the response timelines, the information must be provided free of charge. The State Information Commission’s dismissal was deemed contrary to these statutory mandates.