Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040002022024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/73/2024 Tai Abu Son of Late Tai Bunghi, resident of Lekha Tomru Segment/ village, Doimukh, PO and PS Doimukh, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The Arunachal Pradesh Information Commisison and 2 Ors represented through the Registrar, APIC, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh 2:The Director (PR) cum First Appellate Authority Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Panchayati Raj Itanagar Govt of Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Deputy Director (RE) cum Public Information Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Panchayati Raj Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanaga Advocate for the Petitioner : Tai Shiva, Tato Maying Advocate for the Respondent : Rintu Saikia, GA (AP),SC (Information Commission, AP) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. T. Shiva, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 25.01.2024, passed by the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, Itanagar (APIC for short) in connection with an appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act, by which, the said authority had recorded that the PIO has already provided the information (sanction orders) which are available with him and further held that the documents, which is not available in the office or which is not under his control cannot be disclosed and resultantly, it was held that there is no disclosure obligation on PIO. Accordingly, direction was issued to the PIO, Office of the Director, Panchayati Raj, Itanagar to transfer the RTI application to the DPDOs of all the districts within 1(one) week from the issue of the order and send compliance report. 3. The learned Additional Senior Government has submitted that the said part of the order has been complied with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that various sanction orders which were sought for were issued by the Government in the Panchayati Raj Department and therefore, all requisite information are available in the office of the Panchayati Raj Department of the Government. Page No.# 3/4 5. The learned Additional Senior Government has submitted that vide order dated 07.08.2023, the petitioner was provided with photo copies of the sanction order and cheque and the petitioner was informed that the information about other aspects cannot be supplied due to the following reasons: (i) Enclosed forwarding letters addressed to all 25(twenty-five) DPDOs. (ii) No payment was made by the Deputy Director (RE) (PR) or Director (ER) for construction of Panchayati Bhawan-cum-CSC. 6. It is submitted that the forwarding letter containing the receipt of information is available at page 61 of this writ petition. 7. It is further submitted that the details which was sought in application serial No. 5(i) regarding funds transfer/released of the payment to the district from the department account has been furnished and vide letter dated 03.07.2023, the respondent no. 2 has rejected the application on 11.07.2023 on the ground that information sought by the petitioner comes within the exemption from disclosure of the information specified in Section 8(1)(a), (d) and Section 2 of the RTI Act. 8. Under such circumstances, when the concerned authorities as well as the APIC are of the considered view that certain information are not available with the Director, Panchayati Raj, the order transferring the RTI application to the DPDOs of all the districts, which has been complied with, is not found suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercising of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The direction by APIC contains an explanation why certain records could not be Page No.# 4/4 handed over to the petitioner, justifying the reason for transfer of the application to the DPDOs of the districts. Therefore, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be without any merit and the same is dismissed. 10. The parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant