V.Sudharman vs State Information Commission
2023 Latest Caselaw 1394 Ker

W.P.(C) No.17907 of 2015              1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
      FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
                           WP(C) NO. 17907 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

             V.SUDHARMAN
             JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF LAND
             REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-RESIDING AT "CHAITHANYA",
             OPP.GOKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, VENJARAMOODU.P.O,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607.
             BY ADV SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI


RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
             REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSION SECRETARY, PUNNEN ROAD,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
     2       THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
     3       THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
     4       KADAKKAVOOR VIKRAMAN
             SECRETARY GENERAL, HUMAN RIGHT PROTECTION COUNCIL,
             KADAKKAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 306.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 & R2
             SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3
             SRI.S.SOMAN FOR R4


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2023, THE COURT ON 20.1.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.17907 of 2015                 2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P10 order

passed by the State Information Commission, Thiruvananthapuram under the

Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby an amount of Rs.14,250/- is imposed

towards penalty on the petitioner invoking the powers conferred under section 20

of the Act, 2005, due to the delay of 57 days in providing the information.

2. Exhibit P11 is the order of the State Information Commission dated 5.5.2015

directing the petitioner to remit the penalty amount immediately and Exhibit P12

is the order of the State Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner

(R.E.), Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram dated 12.5.2015, attaching a copy of

the order of the Additional Tahsildar dated 15.10.2009 by which the petitioner

was directed to issue a copy of the information sought for by the 4 th respondent

viz., Kadakkavoor Vikraman, Secretary General, Human Right Protection Council,

Kadakkavoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

petitioner worked as Village Officer from 10.7.2007 to 10.5.2010 in Alamcode

Village Office. On 26.8.2008, Kadakkavoor Vikraman - the 4 th respondent, filed

Exhibit P1 application before the State Public Information Officer, Chirayinkeezhu

Taluk. On 29.8.2008, the Taluk Office forwarded Exhibit P1 application to the

office of the petitioner as per Exhibit P2 forwarding letter. On 5.9.2008, petitioner

received Exhibit P1 application and Exhibit P2 forwarding letter. According to the

petitioner, on 3.10.2008, petitioner issued Exhibit P3 reply calling upon the 4 th

respondent to obtain information on payment of Rs.2/- per page. It is also the

case of the petitioner that Exhibit P3 reply was despatched by the petitioner on

7.10.2008 under Certificate of Posting. Anyhow, on 16.10.2008, the 4 th

respondent filed an appeal against Exhibit P3 letter issued by the petitioner

before the Additional Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezhu as per section 19 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005.

4. On 25.10.2008, Exhibit P4 order was issued in the appeal directing to

furnish the information. It is submitted that on 7.11.2008, petitioner received

Exhibit P4 appellate order and on 29.11.2008, petitioner furnished documents to

the 4th respondent. On 22.9.2009, the 4 th respondent filed Exhibit P5 complaint

before the State Information Commission - the 1 st respondent, seeking a

different claim, is the contention. It is further submitted that on 20.10.2009,

petitioner submitted Exhibit P7 report to the State Information Commission. It is

also stated that on 27.12.2012, Exhibit P9 report was again submitted to the

State Information Commissioner, however, without considering the report

submitted by the petitioner, the State Information Commissioner has passed

Exhibit P10 order on 22.2.2014 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of

Rs.14,250/- towards penalty i.e., Rs.250/- per day for 57 days consequent to the

delay occurred in furnishing the information.

5. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that Exhibit P10

order is highly illegal and arbitrary. It is further stated that Exhibit P3 reply

issued by the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P1 application was not taken into

consideration by the State Information Commissioner. It is further pointed out

that the 4th respondent has raised a totally different relief in Exhibit P5 complaint

before the 1st respondent. In Exhibit P1 application, the 4th respondent did not

demand any report of Special Village Officer Smt.Bindu. It is also contended that

Exhibit P5 cannot be termed as an appeal against Exhibit P4 order of the

Additional Tahsildar since the relief sought for in Exhibits P1 and P4 are totally

different and distinct. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention is that

the State Information Commissioner has issued Exhibit P10 final order without

proper application of mind. It is also contended that the penalty was imposed on

the petitioner without adhering to the provisions of section 20 of the Act, 2005. It

is further submitted that there are cases pending against the 4 th respondent

before various criminal courts and in fact the Kerala LokAyukta cancelled the

registration of the Human Rights Protection council.

6. A counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent basically supporting the

order passed by the State Information Commissioner. It is also submitted that

the documents produced by the petitioner itself would prove that the petitioner

has failed to furnish information within the time prescribed under law and further

that the contention advanced by the petitioner that petitioner has furnished the

information as per Exhibit P3 is not at all correct, which would be proved by the

contents of the said documents. Therefore, according to the 4 th respondent, the

State Information Commissioner was justified in imposing the penalty against the

petitioner since the petitioner failed to provide information as sought for, in

accordance with law.

7. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand adopted in

the writ petition and refuting the contentions advanced by the 4 th respondent in

his counter affidavit.

8. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi,

learned Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission & the

Commissioner Sri.M.Ajay, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Joby Joseph for

the State Officials, and Sri.Soman.S. for the 4th respondent and perused the

pleadings and material on record.

9. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required

to Exhibit P10 order passed by the State Information Commissioner ? The issue

revolves around Exhibit P3 reply issued by the Village Officer, Alamcode - the

petitioner, to the 4th respondent. On a perusal of Exhibit P3 reply, what I could

gather is that instead of furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner, it

is stated that certain documents as requested by the wife of the 4 th respondent is

given to her and if the 4th respondent requires any more documents, he can file

an application enumerating the same and if sufficient fees is paid, the said

information can be provided to the 4 th respondent. The information sought for by

the 4th respondent is;

(1) Copy of the report of the inspection conducted by the Alamcode Village

in respect of the property in Sy.No.328/1 and

(2) Complaints received against the property situated in Sy.No.328/1 of

Alamcode Village, enquiry reports, note file, current file, disposal file etc.

10. The application was in fact submitted before the Additional Tahsildar,

Chirayinkeezhu, who has forwarded the same to the Village Officer and the

Public Information Officer of the Alamcode Village. As I have pointed out above,

instead of furnishing the said information, Exhibit P3 letter dated 3.10.2008 was

issued after one month from the date of receipt of Exhibit P1 from the Additional

Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezhe. It was aggrieved by the same, an appeal was

preferred before the Appellate Authority, who has directed the petitioner to

furnish the copies of documents and information to the 4 th respondent on

25.10.2008. Anyhow, since no action was initiated, Exhibit P5 complaint was

filed before the State Information Commissioner dated 22.9.2009 stating that in

spite of the directions issued by the Appellate Authority, the information was not

furnished to the petitioner and therefore, the action was brought against the

petitioner. Therefore, it can be seen that the contention advanced by the

petitioner that Exhibit P5 submitted by the 4th respondent is entirely for a

different purpose cannot be sustained under law.

11. Apparently, the Commissioner thought it fit to initiate action against the

petitioner and thereupon, the State Information Commissioner has passed

Exhibit P8 order dated 19th April, 2011 directing the petitioner to furnish

information, failing which, action was threatened against the petitioner under

section 20 of the Act, 2005. Anyhow, Exhibit P9 report was submitted by the

Southern Circle Deputy Tahsildar dated 27.12.2012 stating that certain

fabrication of documents were done by the petitioner. It was taking note of the

entire aspects of the matter that Exhibit P10 final order was passed by the

Commission imposing penalty against the petitioner.

12. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. In my

considered opinion, the State Information Commissioner has considered the

issues raised by the 4th respondent in regard to the failure on the part of the

petitioner to furnish the information sought for in Exhibit P1 application. The

Commissioner has found that there was gross delay on the part of the petitioner

in furnishing the information in spite of the issuance of the directions in Exhibit

P4 order by the Appellate Authority and in Exhibit P8 order in the complaint filed

by the 4th respondent before the State Information Commissioner invoking the

powers conferred under section 20 of the Act, 2005. It is evident from Exhibit

P10 that on realising that the petitioner has committed wilful default in

contemplation of the provisions of section 20 of the Act, 2005, the State

Information Commissioner has issued a notice to the petitioner and it was after

giving an opportunity to file objection and hearing the petitioner that the State

Information Commissioner has arrived at the finding that there was a delay of 57

days in furnishing the information and that too after verifying the entire facts in

depth; and it was in terms of the provisions of section 20 of the Act, 2005, the

penalty of Rs.14,250/- was imposed on the petitioner. So, necessarily the

question emerging for consideration is whether Exhibit P10 suffers from the vice

of illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities justifying interference in the

writ petition ? In an analysis of Exhibit P10 report, I have no doubt that the State

Information Commissioner has considered the issue taking into account all the

aspects and complying with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was

provided with sufficient opportunity of hearing and participation as is

contemplated under law before passing Exhibit P10 order.

13. In that view of the matter, I do not think, petitioner has made out any

case for interference exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Needless to say, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                    SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                      JUDGE





                           APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17907/2015

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED26.08.2008 SUBMITTED
                           BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2                 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR
                           & PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CHIRAYINKEEZHU.
Exhibit P3                 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.454/08-09 DATED 03.10.2008
                           ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE
                           ADDL.TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU.
Exhibit P5                 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.09.2009 SUBMITTED
                           BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6                 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.10690/SIC-GEN 2/2009 DATED
                           01.10.2009 FORWARDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
                           PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7                 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.816/09 DATED 20.10.2009
                           SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2011 IN AP
                           1152(4)2009/SIC.
Exhibit P9                 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY
                           THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10                TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.AP 1152 A(4) 2009/SIC
                           DATED 20.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11                TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PRONOUNCED BY THE COMMISSION

VIDE ORDER NO.10690/SIC-GEN 1/2009 DATED 05.05.2015. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H4/38983/2008 DATED 15.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ADDL.

TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G 10-16160/2013/SB DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2014 IN HRM P NO.5108/2013 OF KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R4 A PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.780/D/2002 KELSA DATED 10.07.2002 GIVING ACCREDITATION TO THE ORGANISATION OF 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R4 B PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 24.06.2008 FILED BEFORE PETITIONER BY SMT.LATHIKA FOR GETTING POSSESSION CERTIFICATE.

Exhibit R4 C PHOTOCOPY OF EXT.P1 APPLICATION DATED 26.08.2008 FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

Exhibit R4 D PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION IN THE APPEAL

FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R4 E PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 25.06.2008.

Exhibit R4 F PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.04.2011 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RECEIVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R4 G PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 20.02.2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R4 H PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX REMITTANCE RECEIPT TO THE 04.797 CENTS OF LAND.

Exhibit R4 I PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT IN FORM NO.VI, FORM OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ACCOMPANIED WITH SCHEDULE OF LAND.

Exhibit R4 J PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 29.06.2009. Exhibit R4 K PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.33564/D1/11/RD DATED 24.08.2012 BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE(D) DEPARTMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Exhibit R4 L PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF APPRECIATION NO.3028/C/08/KELSA DATED 26.08.2008.

Exhibit R4 M PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER PAD OF THE COUNCIL.