Chandrankutty.R vs State Information Commission And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17035 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 26227 OF 2011
PETITIONER:

            CHANDRANKUTTY.R
            VALLAKADAVU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 008.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
            SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN

RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
            PUNNAN ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

    2       PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERUNDER THE
            RTI ACT) EXECUTIVE OFFICER,SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY,
            TEMPLE, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SR.
            SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
            SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   12.08.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.26227/2011

                                     2




                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                      -------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.26227 of 2011
              ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 12th day of August, 2021


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for the entire records leading to the issuance of Exhibit-P7 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order.

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing the 2 nd respondent to furnish the entire details sought by the petitioner in Exhibit-P1 application forthwith.

Iii. Grant such other relief that are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Short facts are like this:

The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application before the

Executive Officer / Public Information Officer of Sree

Padmanabha Swamy Temple for getting certain information W.P.(C).No.26227/2011

under the Right to Information Act, 2005. As per Ext.P2, the

Officer concerned informed the petitioner that the information

with regard to the application dated 23.10.2009 submitted by

the petitioner are all matters of subjudice. Therefore he is not

in a position to give information. The petitioner submitted a

complaint before the Chief Information Commissioner as per

Ext.P3. The Commissioner heard the matter and passed

Ext.P7 order. Relevant portion of the order is extracted

hereunder:

"2. Commission examined the petition and the report submitted by the executive officer Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple. For detailed enquiry both parties were directed to appear before the commission on 20-6-2011. Executive Officer, Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple Trivandrum was present. The petitioner was absent.

3. The respondent executive officer submitted before the commission that the Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple is a private temple owned and controlled by the Travancore Royal Family. He further stated that a special leave petition is pending before the Hon. Supreme Court regarding the ownership of the Temple.

Commission examined the report and submission of the respondent Executive Officer. Since a Special W.P.(C).No.26227/2011

Leave Petition is pending before the Hon. Supreme Court, Commission does not want to intervene in this petition at this stage.

The petition is disposed off as above."

3. Today, when this writ petition came up for

consideration, the counsel for the 2 nd respondent submitted

that in the light of the judgment in Marthanda Varma (D)

Thr. LRs) & Another v. State of Kerala [2020 (4) KLT

490], the Apex Court already disposed the matter by a

detailed judgment. Now, if any information is needed to the

petitioner, the petitioner can approach the authority

concerned and the authority concerned will give appropriate

information if it is permissible and required as per law.

In the light of the above submission, with liberty to the

petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in accordance

to law, this writ petition is closed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE W.P.(C).No.26227/2011

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26227/2011

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 23.10.2009 EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF HTE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2009 EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONENT DT.3.12.09 EXHIBIT-P4 A COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.1.2010 EXHIBIT-P5 A COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.1.2010 EXHIBIT-P6 A COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 3.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P7 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2011 EXHIBIT-P8 COPY OF HTE SLP NO.11295/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF HTE INTERIM ORDER IN SLP(C) NO.11295/2011 DATED 2.5.2011 EXHIBIT R2(B) DATED 27.5.1949 AND 29.5.1949 ENTERED INTO BY THE RULERS OF TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN EXHIBIT R2(C) DATED 29.03.2011, TRUE COPY OF SLP(C) NO.112925 OF 2011