A PIO's obligation to provide information under RTI is contingent upon the requestor's payment of prescribed fees; failure to fulfill this does not justify a penalty.

1. The petitioner, a retired Deputy Director in the Department of Fisheries, having been retired on 31.7.2011, has preferred this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority i.e. the State Information Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth 'the Act') whereby the State Information Commission (for short 'the Commission') has imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- to respondent No.4 together with all the required information.

2. Facts of the matter, briefly stated, are that respondent No.4, a social worker, moved an application under S.6 of the Act seeking information in respect of one Fisheries Extension Worker (FEW) on 28.12.2010. The petitioner refused to provide the required information on the ground that the information sought for pertains to individual fisheries extension worker and no public interest is involved in providing the information, therefore, the same cannot be provided in view of the provisions contained in S.8(1) of the Act. Respondent No.4 preferred First Appeal under S.19 of the Act, which was disposed of on 11.3.2011 directing the petitioner to provide information. The petitioner thereafter informed respondent No.4 that he is required to deposit Rs.6/-, as required fee for the information. Respondent No.4 preferred second appeal before the Commission, which in turn passed an order on 1.10.2011 directing the petitioner to provide the required information and at the same time imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- payable to the complainant / respondent No.4. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing WPC No.1034/2012, which was partly allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Commission to pass fresh order on the issue of imposition of penalty after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The present impugned order has been passed in view of this Court's order in the earlier writ petition.

3. The only reason assigned by the Commission for imposing penalty and cost is that despite the order by the first appellate authority, the petitioner failed to provide information. However, perusal of the documents would make it explicit that after the order passed by the first appellate authority, the petitioner directed respondent No.4 to deposit the required fee so that information could be provided to him. Instead of paying fee, respondent No.4 preferred second appeal, which was earlier allowed and thereafter petitioner's writ petition was partly allowed remanding the matter. It is to be seen that the petitioner has never refused to provide information by passing any order. Instead he wanted to comply with the order provided respondent No.4 pays the requisite fee.

4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the Commission would argue that on the date when the first appellate authority passed the order, 30 days time had already elapsed and since the order passed by the petitioner as PIO was already set aside by the first appellate authority and thus, the required information was not provided within 30 days from the date of application, in view of sub-section (6) of S.7, the petitioner was obliged to provide information free of cost. Having not done so and instead asking respondent No.4 to pay the fee, he has violated the law, therefore, imposition of penalty is fully justified.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would support the arguments raised by learned counsel for the Commission.

6. S.6 of the Act makes a provision for dealing with a request for obtaining information whereas S.7 provides for disposal of request. It says, the PI