Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010155212023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4257/2023 GAUTAM KUMAR S/O- LATE KAYARAM KUMAR, R/O- VILLAGE SOLESALA, PACHONIA PARA, P.O- BANGORA, P.S- AZARA, PIN-781015, DIST- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (R) GUWAHATI 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER PALASHBARI REVENUE CIRCLE 4:RATNE KUMARI W/O- LATE LAKHIRAM KUMAR R/O- VILLAGE SOLESALA PACHONIA PARA P.O- BANGORA P.S- PALASHBARI PIN-781015 Page No.# 2/5 DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 5:PRASANNA KUMAR S/O- LATE LAKHIRAM KUMAR R/O- VILLAGE SOLESALA PACHONIA PARA P.O- BANGORA P.S- PALASHBARI PIN-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 6:NRIPEN KUMAR S/O- LATE LAKHIRAM KUMAR R/O- VILLAGE SOLESALA PACHONIA PARA P.O- BANGORA P.S- PALASHBARI PIN-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 7:THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY, MD E AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. D DEKA (R-7),SC, REVENUE Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 29-01-2025 Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Management for the respondent no. 1; Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; and Mr. D. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Information Commission for the respondent no. 7. 2. In view of the nature of grievance raised by the writ petitioner in this writ petition and presence of an alternative, adequate, efficacious and statutory remedy under the Right to Information Act, 2005, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not to be entertained at this stage for the following reasons. 3. The petitioner has projected that his father, Late Kayaram Kumar was the absolute owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 86 and Patta no. 16, situate at Village – Solesala, Mouza – Chayani, District – Kamrup [Rural], Assam [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. The petitioner has further asserted that during his lifetime, the father of the petitioner did not sell the subject-plot to any 3rd person. The petitioner’s father, Late Kayaram Kumar expired on 25.02.2022. Thereafter, on enquiry, the petitioner has come to learn that the respondent revenue authorities had illegally struck off the name of Late Kayaram Kumar from the Records of Rights and in his place, the name of one Lakhiram Kumar has been mutated in place of Late Kayaram Kumar by purchase without making any mention any registered sale deed. Page No.# 4/5 4. The petitioner has further stated that he made an application before the State Public Information Officer [SPIO], O/o the Circle Officer, Palashbari Revenue Circle seeking certain information in connection with the subject-plot, more particularly, the procedure adopted to strike off the name of Late Kayaram Kumar from the revenue records and the details of the particulars of the registered sale deed on the basis of which the name of Lakhiram Kumar had been mutated in respect of the subject-plot, purportedly belonging to Late Kayaram Kumar. When a vague reply was received from the SPIO on 29.12.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority i.e. Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [Rural] on 23.02.2023 under Section 19[1] of the RTI Act. As neither any information has been furnished in respect of the application of the petitioner submitted under the Right to Information [RTI] Act nor the 1st Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal till date, the petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent authorities to furnish the information sought under the RTI Act, 2005. 5. Sub-section [3] of Section 19 of the RTI Act has provided for a 2nd appeal before the jurisdictional State Information Commission. As per sub- section [3] of Section 19, a second appeal against the decision in a 1st appeal preferred under sub-section 19[1] of the RTI Act shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the State Information Commission. It has further been provided that the State Information Commission may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Page No.# 5/5 6. In view of presence of such adequate, efficacious and alternative remedy under Section 19[3] of the RTI Act, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is not to be entertained, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to prefer a second appeal under Section 19[3] of the RTI Act before the Assam Information Commission. Since a question of limitation would also be involved, the petitioner shall furnish the reasons as to why he has been prevented from filing the appeal in time. In the event such an application is filed, the Assam Information Commission shall give consideration to such an application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant