Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010056312026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1613/2026 SRI PRASHANTO BORO S/O KOMAL BORO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADURIBEEL PATHER, PO BASHBERA, PS MISSAMARI, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM 784506 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT OFASSAM, MARKETING AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE ASSAM STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION GADAPANI PATH JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI 781022 3:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER O/O THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM 784001 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM SPIO SONITPUR ZILLA PARISHAD TEZPUR ASSAM 784001 5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/3 TEZPUR (SPIO) SONITPUR ASSAM 784001 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHEKIAJULI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DHEKIAJULI SONITPUR ASSAM 78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MOTIUR RAHMAN, R ALI,I AMIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 20.04.2026 Heard Shri M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Hazarika, learned State Counsel and Shri D. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, State Information Commission. Considering the facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. Suffice it to mention that the matter had earlier come for consideration on 20.03.2026. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to alleged non furnishing of information sought by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Shri Rahman, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under the aforesaid Act on 23.05.2025 seeking information with regard to certain revenue collection from the Dhekiajuli weekly market for the period 2022- Page No.# 3/3 2025. However, no information was furnished and the petitioner also claims to have preferred a first appeal. Shri Deka, the learned Standing Counsel has however drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated 30.10.2025 issued by the Information Commission to the petitioner whereby his appeal was returned with an advice to file the same in the manner prescribed. The communication dated 30.10.2025 has been carefully perused in which all the necessary requirements to prefer an appeal has been given in details. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid requirements were not fulfilled by the petitioner. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of the requirement as stated in the communication dated 30.10.2025. It is also provided that since there is a period of limitation prescribed for preferring the appeal, if such appeal is filed within 08.05.2026, the appellate authority would not insist on the limitation part and would consider and pass appropriate orders on the merits of the appeal. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant