Shibu Jacob vs State Public Information Officer ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2760 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

      MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P)


PETITIONER:

               SHIBU JACOB
               AGED 49 YEARS
               S/O. JACOB, THAKADIYEL, ESTHOSE ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA
               P.O., NOW RESIDING AT THAKADIYEL HOUSE, VAZHOOR P.O.,
               ELAMPALLY KARA, ANICKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK,
               KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686504.

               BY ADVS.
               SHRI.P.M.JOSHI
               SMT.SIJI K.PAUL

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND VILLAGE OFFICER
               VILLAGE OFFICE, ALAKODE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685588.

      2        1ST APPEAL AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR,
               TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-
               685588.

      3        STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER UNDER RIGHT TO
               INFORMATION ACT,
               STATE OF KERALA, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN-695039, (SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY).

               R3 BY SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN

OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P)
                                2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of January 2021

The petitioner herein applied for an attested copy of

FMB under Section 71 of the Right to Information Act.

The first respondent demanded a fee of Rs.1,518/-

(Rupees One thousand five hundred eighteen only) for

the photocopy of the FMB.

2. According to the petitioner herein, the fees

charged by the first respondent was exorbitant and

against the provisions of the Right to Information Act, and

the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and

Cost) Rules, 2006. In the light of the urgent requirement

of the FMB, he remitted the fees on 09.08.2016 and

preferred an appeal before the second respondent,

challenging the exorbitant fees charged by the first

respondent. The appeal was dismissed. He filed a second

appeal before the third respondent which was dismissed

by Ext.P5 order, without affording an opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner.

WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P)

3. The reason given by the State Information

Commission as is discernible from para 2 of Ext.P5 is that,

the petitioner was well-versed in the provision of the

Right to Information Act, that he has remitted the fee fully

knowing that it was excess and thereafter, approached

the authorities challenging the order. It was held that he

should not have remitted the fee and should have

approached the Commission, challenging it.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel for the State

Information Commission.

5. I cannot justify the stand taken by the State

Information Commission, in so far as, it took the view that

the petitioner has waived his right to challenge the order

by remitting the fee. Evidently, the stand taken by the

petitioner indicates that he was not satisfied with the fee

collected. Merely because fee has been remitted, that

does not take away his right to challenge the

proceedings, unless the petitioner, specifically or by

necessary implication has waived his right.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P)

out that, in an identical case he did not remit the fee and

challenged the matter. The matter is still pending as Writ

Petition No.33768 of 2016. No orders have been passed.

7. Having considered the entire facts, I feel that

by mere remittance of the fee, by itself will not take away

the legal right of the petitioner to challenge the

impugned order if he is really aggrieved.

8. Having considered this, I am inclined to remand

the matter to the third respondent - State Information

Commission for a fresh consideration of the above

appeal. The impugned order is set aside and the matter

is remanded to the State Information Commission for

passing appropriate orders on appeal, after giving an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein. The

orders shall be passed by the State Information

Commission within a period of one month from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/25-1 WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 9.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPEAL DATED 1.9.2016.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2016 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL DATED 15.10.2016.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE