A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(2.) THE petitioner is the General Secretary of the Forum for Better Hyderabad, a Non -Government Organization engaged in taking up several issues of public interest. The petitioner filed an application on 06.06.2007 to the third respondent seeking a copy of the sanctioned plan in respect of the premises No.8 -3 - 949/1, Ameerpet, Hyderabad under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act). When the petitioner enquired with the third respondent on 07.08.2007, he was informed that the requisite fee of Rs.10/ - was not found along with the application and when he was informed so, the petitioner paid the amount on 07.08.2007 itself. But, the third respondent did not furnish the information as required under Section 7(1) of the Act within the period of thirty days. The petitioner received a letter dated 24.08.2007 on 19.09.2007 from the second respondent requesting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.44,787/ - for providing the certified copies of the sanctioned plans in respect of the premises required by the petitioner. The amount was calculated @ Rs.165 per 1000 sft. of the total sanctioned area. The petitioner submitted a reply on 19.09.2007 itself to the second respondent stating that since the information was not furnished within thirty days as required under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is entitled for the information free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the Act. Challenging the demand of the said amount, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order on 12.02.2008 dismissing the appeal, challenging which the present Writ Petition was filed.
(3.) NO counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of furnishing the information within thirty days, as provided under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to have the information free of cost under Section 7(6) of the Act. Though the said point was raised before the first respondent, the first respondent did not advert to the said point in the order dismissing the appeal. It is further submitted that the demand of Rs.44,787/ - is ultra vires the provisions of the Act, as the Rules were framed under the provisions of the Act called, the Andhra Pradesh Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 (for short, the Rules), which override the rules under any other enactment.;