Government must refund RTI fees with lawful interest when requested records are unavailable.

The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning the stock register, distribution register and cash memos of the PDS shop operated by the Laxmi Narayanpur PACS for the period June 2017 to December 2018.

The application dated 14 February 2019 was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the In-charge Block Supply Officer-cum-Public Information Officer.

The petitioner was directed to deposit ₹22,500 towards the cost of supplying the information and deposited the amount in the Sub-Divisional Nazarat on 25 May 2019.

Subsequently, the authorities informed him that the relevant records had been lost and, therefore, could not be supplied.

The respondents’ counter-affidavit confirmed that the records were unavailable and referred to communications made by the PACS Chairman and the police regarding their loss.

However, the counter-affidavit did not disclose that the deposited amount had been refunded.

Whether the respondents could be directed to furnish the requested information when the relevant PDS records had admittedly been lost and were unavailable?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of ₹22,500 deposited for obtaining the information, together with interest, when the information could not be supplied?

The Court applied the remedial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a mandamus where a public authority has failed to discharge a corresponding public duty.

The Court proceeded on the principle that an amount deposited by an applicant for obtaining information must be refunded where the authority is unable to provide the information and there is no fault attributable to the applicant.

It further held that continued retention of the petitioner’s money in the Government Treasury since 2019 justified refund with interest “in accordance with law”.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court accepted the respondents’ explanation that the requested registers and cash memos had been lost, as supported by the communications of the PACS authorities and the report made to the police.

Since the records were unavailable, the authorities were not in a position to furnish the requested information.

However, the petitioner had deposited ₹22,500 solely to meet the cost of obtaining that information, and the respondents’ own pleadings did not show that the amount had been refunded.

The Court therefore held that retaining the money, despite the non-supply of information and the absence of fault on the petitioner’s part, was unjustified.

The refund claim was consequently allowed, with interest payable in accordance with law.

The Court did not direct the respondents to furnish the requested records because their non-availability due to loss had been established.

The Court directed respondent no. 5—the In-charge Block Supply Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Mahua—to refund ₹22,500 to the petitioner along with interest in accordance with law, within two months from receipt of the judgment.

Any pending interlocutory application was disposed of.