Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010096502018 2025:GAU-AS:9569 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2939/2018 SANTANU DAS S/O LT. TARUN CHANDRA KACHARI R/O HOUSE NO. 15, JYOTI PATH, HATIGAON, LAKHIMI NAGAR, P.S. HATIGAON, GUWAHATI- 781038, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND 2 ORS. ASSAM, OFFICE OF THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION, JONAKEE COMPLEX, SHILPAGRAM ROAD, PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037, DIST.KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 DIST.KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001 Page No.# 2/5 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D BHATTACHARYA, MR. S DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC R2 R3, MR. D DEKA BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. D Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Deka, learned counsel for the Chief Information Commissioner. 2. The writ petition is filed assailing impugned orders dated 12.01.2018 and 02.04.2018 passed by Chief Information Commissioner, Assam in Second Appeal No. KP(M).438/2016 (Bipin Chandra Thakuria vs Guwahati Municipal Corporation). 3. The impugned order dated 12.01.2018, being bone of contention, the relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow: “2. Moreover, vide this Commission’s order dated 12.10.2017, 15.11.2017 and 14.12.2017, the SPIO of GMC was directed to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2006 shall not be imposed on him for non-compliance of this Commission’s successive orders as mentioned above. This Commission takes serious note of the fact that Shri Santanu Das, SPIO and Associate Planner of GMC has not bothered to make any submission in this regard. Nor has he availed of the opportunity given to him of being heard personally before imposing any penalty. 3. Under the circumstances narrated above, the following orders are passed: (A) A penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only is imposed on Shri Santanu Das, Associate Planner and concerned SPIO of GMC for failing to furnish the sought for information and for no-compliance of this Commissioner’s successive orders Page No.# 3/5 mentioned above without any reasonable cause. He shall deposit the penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order by way of Treasury Chalan in State Govt. Head of Account “0070-Other Administrative Services” with intimation to this Commission.” 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed a review application before the State Information Commissioner and said review petition was also dismissed by an order dated 02.04.2018, which is also under challenge before this court. Said order is quoted hereinbelow: “Seen the review petition dated Nil submitted by Sri Santanu Das, son of Sri Tarun Ch. Kochari, Associate Planner, in Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) praying for review of this Commission's order dated 12-1-2018. By its order dated 12-1-2018, this Commission imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/- on Sri Santanu Das for his failure to furnish the sought for informations to the petitioner Sri BC. Thakuria and for non- compliance of this Commission's earlier orders dated 12-10-2017, 15-11-2017 and 14- 12-2017. Being aggrieved by that order Sri Santanu Das, Associate Planner, GMC filed an un-dated review petition which was received by this Commission on 30th January, 2018, praying for a review of the order imposing penalty on the following grounds:- a) That this Commission's orders dated 12-10-2017 and 15-11-2017 were not served on him and, therefore, he had no knowledge of those orders. b) That only one day before the hearing on 14-12-2017 i.e., on 13-12-2017 Commissioner, GMC gave him the responsibility of complying with CIC, Assam's order dated 8-6-2017 and c) That he is not the regular SPIO of the Planning Branch of GMC. Only with regard to the instant second appeal case he was given the responsibility of SPIO, whereas one Sri Dipak Bezbaruah deals with all other matters of RTI in GMC. The Registry of this Commission forwarded the review petition to the Commissioner, GMC vide forwarding letter dated 15th February, 2018 requesting her to clarify by way of an affidavit "whether the averments made by Sri Santanu Das, the petitioner, in his review petition are borne out by your official record and what is the correct position in the matter" Commissioner, GMC submitted her affidavit on 17th March, 2018 vide forwarding letter Page No.# 4/5 dated 20-3-2018. In her affidavit the Commissioner, GMC has clarified that a) This Commission's orders dated 12-10-2011 and 15-02-2018 were directly issued to him and both the orders were received in his branch on 30-10-2017 and 22-11-2017 respectively. b) The assertion of the review petitioner that one day before the heating, i.e. 13-12-2017, the Commissioner, GMC gave him the responsibility of complying with the Commissioner's order dated 8-6-2017 is not true to records in as much as Sri Das was informed about the same on 11-12-2017itself. c) The assertion of the review petitioner that he is not the regular SPIO of the Planning Branch, GMC, and that he was given the responsibility of SPIO only with regard to instant second appeal is not correct. The review petitioner was given the responsibility of disposal of RTI matters pertaining to the Planning Branch, GMC way back on 16-3- 2016. The Commissioner, GMC has enclosed copies of relevant records in support of her statements along with the affidavit. From the clarifications furnished by the Commissioner, GMC, it appears that there is no merit in the review petition filed by Sri Santanu Das and, therefore, this Commission does not find any ground to review its order dated 12-1-2018, except for the following modifications regarding recovery of the penalty. Commissioner, GMC will recover the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- in two equal installments of Rs. 12,500/- each from the monthly salary of Sri Santanu Das, Associate Planner, GMC for the months of April and May, 2018 and deposit the same in the Head of Account-“0070- other Administrative Services”. With the above order the review petition submitted by Sri Santanu Das, Associate Planner is disposed of.” 5. The ground urged by the petitioner is similar as that has been taken in the review i.e. that order dated 12.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 of the State Information Commission were not served on him and that before hearing on 14.12.2017, the responsibility was given to the petitioner by the Commissioner only on 13.10.2017 and that he is not a regular SPIO of Planning Branch of GMC. Page No.# 5/5 6. The Commissioner of Guwahati Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit in this regard, which is recorded in the order dated 24.01.2018 and the learned Chief Information Commissioner, Assam has rejected taking note of the statement made by the Commissioner and the material produced before him. 7. This court is in total agreement with the determination made. From the material available on record and the determination made by way of the impugned orders, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot be said to have failed to exercise its jurisdiction or violated principle of natural justice inasmuch as this court has not found any perversity in the aforesaid orders. 8. That being the position, the petitioner has failed to make out any case to issue writ of certiorari. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant