Priya Pal Bhikku v. The Assam Information Commission and 2 Ors

ORDER

10.12.2024

Heard Mr. K.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned Government Advocate for the Government of Assam. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Assam Information Commission in the second appeal preferred by the petitioner. By the said order the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed an application before the Public Information Officer, Political (Cabinet Cell) Department, Government of Assam, dated 06.01.2020 requesting for some information under the Right To Information Act, 2005. Since, the information sought for was not forthcoming, the petitioner filed first appeal under Section 19 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. The first appeal was filed on 17.02.2020. During the pendency of the first appeal the information which had been sought for under the Right To Information Act, 2005, vide his application dated

06.01.2020 was furnished to the petitioner. This information was furnished by the Department on 07.03.2020. Being dissatisfied with the information provided the petitioner preferred second appeal on 15.02.2021 along with an application Page No.# 3/6 for seeking condonation of delay filed on the same date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 19(1) of the Right To Information Act, 2005, the first appeal is required to be filed by the person aggrieved seeking information from the concerned authority within a period of 30 days. Under Section 19(3) of the Right To Information Act, 2005, the second appeal may be preferred before the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission within a further period of 90 days from the date when the decision should have been made or actually received. However, the commission may admit any appeal even upon the expiry of 90 days, if it is satisfied the petitioner was reminded by a sufficient cost. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that because of the COVID-19 pandemic situation which was prevailing through out the country at the relevant point of time the petitioner could not file the second appeal immediately within a period of 30 days from the date he was served with the information by letter dated

07.03.2020. The appeal along with condonation petition was filed on

15.02.2021. It is submitted that the Commission rejected the second appeal filed on the ground of limitation without consideration of the order passed by the Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 by order dated

10.01.2022. He submits that since the Apex Court had already extended period of limitation vide its order dated 10.01.2022 because of the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Commission ought to have taken note of this extended period of limitation and ought not to have dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submits that the order passed by the Apex Court had extended the period of limitation and was perhaps not been taken into consideration by the second Appellate Authority. Page No.# 4/6 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the writ petition within short compass purpose. The order passed by the Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 by order dated 10.01.2022 reflects that certain directions were passed by the Apex Court, whereby the period of limitation were extended from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2020, in view of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation. By this order, since the limitation period was extended up to 22.02.2022 the second appeal along with condonation which was filed on 15.02.2021 was within the extended period of limitation and the Commission ought to have been taken note of the said order and ought not to have been rejected the appeal on the ground of the limitation. For the purposes of the present proceeding it is necessary to extract order dated 10.01.2022, which reads as under:- "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2022 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2021 SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO.3 OF 2020 IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2022 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2021 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO.3 OF 2020

¶1In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

¶2On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated

23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and

14.03.2021. While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. Page No.# 5/6

¶3Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID¬19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021.

¶4The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates¬on-Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID-19 and the drastic surge in the number of COVID cases across the country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following: i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020 ; and ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶5Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021,

27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till

28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

¶6As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn." Having noted the directions of the Apex Court passed in the order dated

10.01.2022, this Court is of the view that the writ petition should be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed interfering with the order dated Page No.# 6/6

16.03.2021. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the second Appellate Authority namely the Assam Information Commission to re-decide the second appeal filed on

15.02.2021 along with the condonation petition. By taking into consideration the directions of the Apex Court passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022 and thereafter passed appropriate orders in the matter. With the above observations this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010091802023 ooooooo undefined ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/2423/2023o PRIYAoPALoBHIKKUo SONoOFoLATEoMONoKUMARoCHAKMA,o RESIDENToOF-oMAYAoSAROVORoAREA,o POST-oBODHGAYA,oDISTRICT-oGAYA,o BIHAR,oPIN-o824231. VERSUSo THEoASSAMoINFORMATIONoCOMMISSIONoANDo2oORSo JONAKEEoCOMPLEX,oSHILPAGRAMoROAD,oGUWAHATI,o781037o REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECRETARY,o ASSAMoINFORMATIONoCOMMISSION,o JONAKEEoCOMPLEX,oSHILPAGRAMoROAD,o GUWAHATI,o781037. 2:THEoSECRETARY oASSAMoINFORMATIONoCOMMISSION oJONAKEEoCOMPLEX o SHILPAGRAMoROAD o GUWAHATI o781037. 3:THEoCHIEFoINFORMATIONoCOMMISSIONER oASSAM oINFORMATIONoCOMMISSION o JONAKEEoCOMPLEX o SHILPAGRAMoROAD o Page No.# 2/6 GUWAHATI 781037 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K R BAROOAH, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA