SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts, which requires to be mentioned for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Satpal was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Village Tigrana, District Bhiwani. Complainant-Subhash son of Rohtash-respondent No. 4-information-seeker (for short ''the complainant'') moved an application dated 26.09.2008(Annexure P-l) to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and sought the entire information's regarding the development works carried out by the petitioner from the year 2005 to 26.09.2008 (the date of filing the application), invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act''). The BDPO sent the application to the petitioner, vide order dated 01.10.2008 and letter dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) After receipt of the application, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 09.10.2008(Annexure P-3), informing the complainant that the information demanded by him from 2005 to financial year 2008, is running into 1804 pages and asked him to deposit Rs. 18,040/- as statutory fees. l\ was stipulated in the letter that, if the complainant failed to deposit the requisite fees upto 03.11.2008, then, it will be deemed that he is no more interested to take the copies of the documents. At the same time, the petitioner also informed the BDPO by way of letter dated 05.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) in this context.

(3.) Dissatisfied with the action of the petitioner, the complainant moved a petition and the BDPO after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion, that the petitioner Sarpanch has duly informed, but the complainant did not deposit the requisite fees for obtaining the copies of the documents. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner did not refuse to give information, rather the complainant was at fault and the petition was dismissed, by way of order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-5).