Adv.Pramod Kumar K.G vs The Kerala State Information ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 5039 Ker

Kerala High Court

Adv.Pramod Kumar K.G vs The Kerala State Information ... on 15 February, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 27068 OF 2021
PETITIONER (IN-PERSON):

          ADV.PRAMOD KUMAR K.G.
          AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O. R. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
          KAARADAKKETHIL,
          KUTTAMPEROOR P.O,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
          PIN 689 623

          BY ADV ADV.PRAMOD KUMAR K.G.(Party-In-Person)


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION-
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          PUNNEN ROAD,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023

    2     THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
          KERALA POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -95 010

    3     THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
          AND ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          (ADMINISTRATION)
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
          ALAPPUZHA - 688 012

    4     THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
          ALAPPUZHA - 688 012

    5     THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
          AND ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          (ADMINISTRATION),
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
          PATHANAMTHITTA - 688 012
 WP(C)No.27068 of 2021
                                           2

      6        THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND
               DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               PATHANAMTHITTA - 688 012

               BY ADVS.
               SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN
               ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. T B HOOD (SPL GP)


        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    15.02.2024,       THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.27068 of 2021
                                       3




                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a practising advocate. He appears

party-in-person. This writ petition has been filed seeking to

set aside Ext.P12 order issued by the Kerala State

Information Commission and seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 3 and 5 to provide the information

sought for in Exts.P1 and P2 applications filed before

respondents 3 and 5.

2. The petitioner would submit that, the

petitioner had sought for certain information through Exts.P1

and P2 before the State Public Information Officer, Office of

the District Police Chief, Alappuzha and the State Public

Information Officer, Office of the District Police Chief,

Pathanamthitta. It is submitted that, in response to Exts.P1

and P2 applications, the petitioner was served with Exts.P4

and P5 from the State Public Information Officer, Office of the

District Police Chief, Alappuzha and from the State Public

Information Officer, Office of the District Police Chief,

Pathanamthitta as also with Ext.P3 communication from the

District Fire and Rescue Officer, Alappuzha. It is submitted

that, a reading of Exts.P4 and P5 will indicate that, though

the information regarding postings, transfers and other

service details of Civil Police Officers, Senior Civil Police

Officers, Assistant Sub Inspectors, and Sub Inspectors

working in Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta Districts were

readily available, the petitioner was provided with only part of

the information sought for in Exts.P1 and P2 and regarding

the rest of the information, the petitioner was required to go

to the office of the respective Public Information Officers and

to collect the details from Registers/books maintained in

those offices. It is submitted that the petitioner thereupon

filed appeals before the State Information Commission and

the State Information Commission by Ext.P12 common order

in both the appeals filed by the petitioner rejected the appeals

on the finding that the information (in respect of which the

petitioner was called upon to go to the respective offices)

were not available in consolidated form or as a collated

document, though it is evident from Exts.P4 and P5, that such

information was readily available in the offices concerned. It

is submitted that, in such circumstances, Ext.P12 order of the

State Information Commission is liable to be set aside and the

concerned respondents must be directed to provide the entire

information sought for by the petitioner through Exts.P1 and

P2 communications.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the official respondents would submit that, this

is not a case where, any information had been denied to the

petitioner. It is submitted that the information sought for by

the petitioner are voluminous in nature and had not been

consolidated as a single document. It is submitted that, in

such circumstances, without disproportionately diverting the

resources of the public authority, it would not be possible to

collate all the information and give it to the petitioner as a

single document. It is submitted that the petitioner was,

therefore, asked to come to the office and collect the

information. It is submitted that, if the petitioner were to

approach the concerned office, the information will be readily

available to the petitioner, as he can go through the

concerned records for the purposes of collecting the

information. It is submitted that the information which was

readily available, has already been furnished to the petitioner

and regarding the same, the petitioner has no complaint.

4. Sri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the State Information Commission would also

support the contentions taken by the learned Government

Pleader and submit that, in the facts and circumstances of

this case, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the

provisions of the Right to Information Act (the Act) by the

officials concerned and further that in the facts and

circumstances of this case, there is no mistake in the orders

issued by the State Information Commission.

5. Having heard the petitioner who appears in

person, the learned Special Government Pleader and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Information

Commission, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made

out any case for grant of relief under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. It is true that, when the information is

readily available, it is the duty of the Public Information

Officer to make available such information so long as the

information relates to the matters which are not prohibited or

restricted for disclosure in terms of the provisions contained

in the Right to Information Act. In the facts of the present

case, it is seen that the petitioner had sought for information

which it is clear (on a reading of the applications itself) would

not be available as a single document as the information

sought for relates to the details of appointment, transfers and

postings of Home Guards, Civil Police Officers, Senior Civil

Police Officers, Assistant Sub Inspectors, and Sub Inspectors

working in the Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta Districts.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader is

also right in contending that this is not a case where, the

petitioner has been denied information. Though the provisions

of Section 4(1) of the Right to Information Act require the

public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued

and indexed in a manner that facilitates the right to

information and though the petitioner has a case on the basis

of Ext.P13 order issued by the State Information Commission

that the police department was required to comply with the

terms of Section 4(1) of the Act, I am of the view that, even

the provisions of Section 4(1) are also subject to the

availability of resources. That apart, the provisions of Section

7(9) of the Act indicate that, information shall ordinarily be

provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would

disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority

or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the

record in question. It is the specific case of the official

respondents that the information sought for by the petitioner

(in respect of which the petitioner was required to come to

the office of the Public Information Officer) are not collated

and kept as a single document and they are voluminous in

nature. As already noticed the applications filed by the

petitioner indicate that the information sought for was in

relation to the appointment, posting and transfers of Home

Guards, Civil Police Officers, Senior Civil Police Officers,

Assistant Sub Inspectors, and Sub Inspectors working in the

Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta Districts spanning over a

period of three years. Therefore, it can only be held that,

when the information sought for was not collated and was not

available as a single document, the resources of the public

authority would be disproportionately diverted, if it were

required to collect the information from various records and

collate it as a single document for the purpose of providing

information to the petitioner. That apart, this is not a case

where, the information has been denied to the petitioner and

Exts.P4 and P5 communications clearly indicate that the

petitioner may collect the information from the respective

offices, after examining the records.

In the above facts and circumstances, I am not

inclined to interfere with Ext.P12 order of the State

Information Commission. The petitioner is not entitled to the

relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition is,

accordingly, dismissed, making it clear that it will be open to

the petitioner to approach the respective authorities for

obtaining the information in terms of Exts.P4 and P5.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P., JUDGE rkj

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27068/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11-09-2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11-09-2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT, CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT DATED 13-10-2020 Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'REPLY TO EXHIBIT P1' OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06-10-2020 Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'REPLY TO EXHIBIT P2' OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-10-2020 Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-10-2020 Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT, DATED 15-10-2020 Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'REPLY TO EXHIBIT P6' OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED, 04-11-2020 Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'REPLY TO EXHIBIT P7' OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 16-11-2020 Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20-11-2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21-11-2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'COMMON ORDER' OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09-07-2021 IN APPEALS VIDE NOS.AP 1667(3)/2020/SIC AND AP 1668(3)/2020/SIC Exhibit P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21-01-2012 IN APPEAL VIDE NO. AP 599(5/SIC/2010