Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010045762025 2025:GAU-AS:2620 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1369/2025 RABINDRA KR. NATH S/O- SRI RAMEN NATH, SOUTH SARANIA, ULUBARI, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781007. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI-110066. 3:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE- NORTH EAST NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NEDFi HOUSE 4TH FLOOR DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REGIONAL OFFICE- NORTH EAST NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NEDFi HOUSE 4TH FLOOR DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY REGIONAL OFFICE- NORTH EAST Page No.# 2/4 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NEDFi HOUSE 4TH FLOOR DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NHAI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 12.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 and Mr. C.K Baruah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 2. The petitioner submitted applications on 21.04.2024 and 26.04.2024 before the Public Information Officer, NHAI (Regional Office), NE. As no information was furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the First Appellate Authority has also not provided any information within the period prescribed. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the second Appellate authority but no information has been furnished till date. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 4. It is on record that the appeal of the petitioner before the Chief Information Commissioner, NHAI, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi was registered on 05.11.2024 against Diary No.648762/2024. 5. In terms of section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy, inasmuch as section 19(1) prescribes that if any person does not receive a decision within the time specified under sub section (1) or clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 7, he may within 30 days from the expiry of such period, prefer an appeal to such an officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. 6. Clause (a) of Sub section (3) of section 7 provides that the Central Public Information Officer on receipt of request under section 6 either provide the information or payment of such fee or as may be prescribed or reject the request for any reason specified under section 8 and 9. 7. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner had a remedy under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, however, instead of availing the same, the petitioner has approached this court. 8. The RTI Act, 2005 and the rules framed there under are having complete code in itself so far relating to grant of information, inasmuch as the aforesaid act provides time limit and remedy against not furnishing information but also against not furnishing information within the stipulated time. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in 1998 8 SCC 1 in paragraphs No.14 and 15 has observed the following which are quoted herein below: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, Page No.# 4/4 mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a direction to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.” 10. In the light of the above discussion as regards exercise of the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court on analysis of the provisions of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005, is of the considered view that such remedy is an efficacious and adequate one providing, which provides for an appeal and a second appeal. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that this writ petition is not to be entertained, as it is open to the petitioner to have recourse to the remedy under the RTI Act, 2005. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained, however, it is open to the petitioner to have recourse to any remedy under the RTI Act, 2005 by filing appropriate application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant