Moosakutty vs State Information Commission
2021 Latest Caselaw 6297 Ker

W.P.(C) No.4425/2021               1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4425 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER:

               MOOSAKUTTY,
               S/O. USSANAR, KOMATH PARAMBU, VAVULLIPURAM, TARUR,
               ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
               SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS

RESPONDENTS:

       1       STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
               KERALA, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

       2       TAHSILDAR ,ALATHUR
               ( APPELLATE AUTHORITY), PALAKKAD-678 541

       3       VILLAGE OFFICER (PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER),
               KUTHANNUR-I VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 721


OTHER PRESENT:

               SC SRI.M.AJAY,SR.GP K.P HARISH
                 GOVT.PLEADER K.P.HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.4425/2021                     2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021

Petitioner moved State Information Commission in A.P.No.2711(1)/2019

contending that the 3rd respondent, who is a public information officer, did not

furnish the information within a stipulated time, and, the information which

was given on 22/11/2019, was incomplete. Hence, petitioner sought action

against the 3rd respondent. The State Information Commission by Ext.P5

called upon the Public Information Officer to explain as to why action shall not

be taken and directed to give explanation within fifteen days from the date of

Ext.P5. Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Grievance of the petitioner is

that, in spite of Ext.P5, no further order has been passed by the State

Information Commission.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

standing counsel for the first respondent, I am satisfied that the first

respondent is liable to pass consequential orders pursuant to Ext.P5.

Accordingly, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the

first respondent to pass appropriate orders pursuant to Ext.P5 on the strength

of reply, if any, given by the Public Information Officer. Such a decision shall

be taken within two months from today. If the authority feels that the Public

Information Officer should be given an opportunity of being heard, that can

also be granted.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.7.2019 TOGETHER WITH THE RECEIPT AND THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 14.10.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.12.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.6.2020 INVITING THE PETITIONER FOR AUDIO HEARING

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.,7.2020 ISSUED BY THE STATE COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.10.2020 WITH COURIER RECEIPT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON 22.11.2019 BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER