The State Information Commission vs The State Information Commission
2021 Latest Caselaw 3648 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

              RP.No.30 OF 2016 IN WP(C). 10086/2013

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 10086/2013 DATED 10-12-2015 OF HIGH
                         COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/FIRST RESPONDENT:

             THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
             (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), OFFICE OF THE STATE
             INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNEN ROAD,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

             BY ADV. SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 2,3 & 4:

      1      LOUIS MATHEW
             S/O LATE L. MATHEW, KALLUVILAYATHIL VEEDU, MANNADI
             PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

      2      THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
             DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN- 695 001

      3      THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTRUAL OFFICER,
             PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
             PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645

      4      LALAN N.,
             KRISHNALAYAM, PARAKKARA PO, THATTAYIL, ADOOR,
             PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION             ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.NO.30 OF 2016

                                          2


                                 O R D E R

Dated this the 01st day of February 2021

This review petition has been filed inter alia contending that

there is an error apparent on the face of record. The main

contention urged by the review petitioner is that, this Court has

considered issued which were not argued before the Commission.

After referring to the facts and circumstances involved in the

matter, this Court had come to a specific finding that the writ

petitioner was not liable to answer the questions which were not

evident from the records. The very purpose of Right to

Information Act, is to provide materials which are available in the

respective office. It is under such circumstances, that this Court

had arrived at a conclusion that the Commissioner had exceeded

its jurisdiction. No grounds are made out to review the judgment.

The review petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

VPK