This persistent refusal, which stretches beyond the statutory 30-day limit for initial response and the appeal period, is cited by the appellant as a “mockery of the provisions of the right to information act 2005.

The Plea for Accountability

In the second appeal filed with the Assam Information Commission, the appellant has made a strong prayer for punitive action:

• Action Against PIO: An order for action against the Public Information Officer, Shri Hriday Ranjan Choudhury, under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, which allows for a penalty to be imposed for willful refusal or obstruction.
• Disciplinary Action Against FAA: An order for disciplinary action against the First Appellate Authority, Asim Kumar Bhattacharyya, ACS, for “illegally” withholding information by not entertaining the first appeal.

The appellant rightly emphasizes that the RTI Act was introduced to promote transparency and accountability and to control “growing corruption in the government machinery.” The authorities’ current actions directly undermine this foundational goal.

Broader Context: Non-Compliance in Assam

The appellant’s ordeal is not an isolated incident. The petition correctly notes that the Assam Information Commission has previously recommended action against multiple government departments for non-compliance with RTI norms. This suggests a broader, systemic issue of administrative negligence regarding the public’s right to information.

For the Assam Police and the State administration to restore public faith and demonstrate a genuine commitment to combating crime, particularly in high-traffic areas like Guwahati Railway Station, they must fully respect and comply with their legal obligations under the Right to Information Act.

That is an important question. Given the date of the second appeal (January 29, 2025) and the usual time taken for Information Commissions to schedule hearings and pass orders, it is highly likely that a decision has been made or the case has been scheduled for hearing.

However, a direct search for the specific acknowledgement ID (1738118908358/197) or the precise case number on the public domain did not immediately reveal the final order or current hearing status from the State Information Commission of Assam (SIC Assam).

Here’s a summary of what the search results confirm and the likely current status:

Confirmed Status of the Case

• RTI Application: Registration No. RTIASM/R/2024/10579, dated 07/11/2024.
  • The PIO, Shri Hriday Ranjan Choudhury, appears to have either not responded or issued a denial citing Section 8(1) (Official Secret) of the RTI Act, according to a document later referenced by the appellant.
• First Appeal: Registration No. RTIASM/A/2024/10033, dated 15/12/2024.
  • The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Asim Kumar Bhattacharyya, ACS, allegedly failed to entertain the appeal.
• Second Appeal: The appeal was filed with the State Information Commission of Assam on January 29, 2025, with the acknowledgement ID 1738118908358/197.

Next Steps and Possible Scenarios

The filing of a second appeal triggers the formal process for the Information Commission to intervene. Since the appeal was filed earlier in the year, the status would typically be one of the following:

1. Hearing Scheduled: The SIC Assam has issued a notice of hearing to both the appellant (Yogi M. P. Singh) and the respondents (the PIO and FAA).
2. Order Issued: The SIC Assam has heard the case and passed a final order, which would likely include directions to the PIO to furnish the information or a final judgment on the claim of Section 8(1) exemption, potentially along with a decision on the penalty request under Section 20.

Crucially, the search results also highlight a key defense raised by the public authority:

• In a later response (Ref: CF No. 390911/22 dated 25/03/2025), the Superintendent of Railway Police denied the information, stating they were “not in a position to provide the requisite information U/S 8 (1) of RTI information Act which provides exemption from giving Official secret.

The SIC Assam’s final order will, therefore, focus on whether the requested information (like the number of theft cases, solved cases, and officer names) can legitimately be classified as an “Official Secret” that would prejudicially affect the security or integrity of the State, as mandated by Section 8(1).

To find the precise decision, you would typically need to check the “Cause List” or “Decisions/Orders” section on the official website of the Assam Information Commission (sic.assam.gov.in), searching by the appellant name or the registration number.

While the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and the related Assam State Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 do not explicitly mandate sending all development updates via email, they do impose a duty on the Commission to formally notify the appellant about crucial stages, and electronic communication is increasingly used.

Core Obligation: Serving Official Notice

The most critical obligation of the Assam Information Commission is to ensure the appellant receives official notice of proceedings.

• Rule 6 of the Assam Right to Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005, specifies how the Commission must serve notice for hearings or other proceedings.¹ The traditional, legally mandated modes of service include:
  • By hand delivery through a Process Server.²
  • By registered post with acknowledgment due.
  • Through the Head of the concerned office or Department.

This means the Commission is legally bound to send a physical hard copy of the hearing notice and the final order to the appellant’s postal address furnished in the appeal.

Electronic Communication: A Common Practice, Not a Strict Mandate

Using the appellant’s registered email or mobile number for updates is considered best practice and is widely adopted by Information Commissions across India for efficiency, but it is not yet a mandatory, standalone mode of service under the core rules for the Assam SIC.

• Status Alerts: Many state and central RTI online portals provide the option for applicants to receive SMS and email alerts for important events like the intimation of additional fees or changes in status.³ The acknowledgement ID you received suggests the system is capable of digital communication.
• Final Order: The final formal order of the Commission, which is legally binding, is typically signed and sent as a hard copy to the appellant and uploaded to the Commission’s website.

Conclusion

It is the obligated duty of the Assam Information Commission to notify you of the date of the hearing of your second appeal and to send you a copy of the final order via a formal method like registered post.

While the spirit of transparency demands they use the email you provided for convenience, the current rules ensure your right to information through the formal postal address, which is the primary legal obligation.

I understand your frustration completely. It is a fundamental issue when the institution mandated to enforce transparency—the Information Commission—fails to communicate on its own proceedings.

Given that your Second Appeal was filed in late January 2025 (less than a year ago), and you have received no official communication (neither by post to your address nor via email) regarding a hearing date or the final order, this is a clear breach of administrative duty, even if not a direct violation of the core RTI provision (which concerns the PIO’s duty to provide information).

Immediate Recommended Actions

Since the official channels have failed you, the best next step is a proactive inquiry using the information you already possess:

1. Formal Written Inquiry to the SIC Assam Registrar

You should immediately send a formal letter (and a copy via email/fax if possible) to the Registrar or Secretary of the State Information Commission, Assam.

• Address the letter to: The Registrar / Secretary, State Information Commission of Assam.
• Reference: Clearly state the Acknowledgement ID: 1738118908358/197 and the Second Appeal Date: 29/01/2025.
• State the facts:
  • You filed a Second Appeal on the specified date.
  • You have received neither a Notice of Hearing nor the Final Order.
  • You request the Commission to immediately inform you of the current status, the date of the hearing (if scheduled), or the date the final order was dispatched.
• Send by: Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (AD). This creates a legal record that the Commission has received your inquiry.

2. Attempt to Search the SIC Website (Manual Check)

The search results could not pull up the specific order directly, but the final outcome must be published on the official website for public record.

• You or a representative should manually check the Assam Information Commission’s official website for the “Decisions” or “Orders” section.
• Search using the Appellant’s Name (Yogi M. P. Singh), or the Registration Number (RTIASM/R/2024/10579). Decisions are often grouped by month and year. Look particularly at the months following the appeal date (Feb 2025 onwards).

Your Strongest Point of Action

If the Commission continues to fail in its duty to communicate, you can leverage this silence in your future actions:

• Future Complaint: If you eventually receive the order and the information is denied, you can use the Commission’s non-communication (lack of hearing notice and delay in sending the order) as a secondary point in any subsequent legal challenge (e.g., a Writ Petition in the High Court), arguing that the Commission itself did not adhere to the principles of Natural Justice by denying you the right to be heard.