Maneesh Dev D vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6919 Ker

Kerala High Court

Maneesh Dev D vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2025

WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023        1                2025:KER:43649

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

 THURSDAY, THE 19th DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                  WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023

PETITIONER:

          MANEESH DEV D., AGED 41 YEARS,
          S/O. K.K. SAHADEVAN, DEEPTHY GARDENS,
          KUMBAZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
          PIN - 689653

          BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM)
          SMT.R.REMA
          SRI. JACOB P. ALEX

RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
          GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695001

    2
          THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
          STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA,
          PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695039


    3     THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
          PANCHAYATH,
          (FORMERLY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & PERFORMANCE
          AUDIT SUPERVISOR, PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT - 1),
          KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673121
 WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023               2                2025:KER:43649


     4    THE SECRETARY & PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
          PULPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,PULPALLY P.O.,
          WAYANAD, PIN - 673579

     5    MANU T.M.,
          ADVOCATE, 3RD FLOOR, PROVIDENCE PLAZA,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018


          BY ADVS. SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SC, PULPALLY GRAMA
          PANCHAYAT
          SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE FOR R5
          SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING

ON   10.06.2025,   THE   COURT   ON       19.06.2025   DELIVERED   THE

FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023             3               2025:KER:43649



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Exhibit P1 and P2 orders passed

by the State Information Commission, the 2nd respondent.

2. The 5th respondent filed an application seeking

information under the Right to Information Act (for short 'the Act'),

on 19.09.2022, which was received by the petitioner on 22.09.2022,

which, according to him, was a blank cover with no request as

provided under Section 6 of the Act. However, a reply was given on

20.10.2022 stating that only a blank cover was received. Thereafter,

the 5th respondent again filed an application on 22.10.2022, for

which a reply was furnished on 08.11.2022. Not satisfied with the

reply given by the petitioner, the 5th respondent again filed an

appeal before the 3rd respondent, appellate authority and Assistant

Director of Panchayath, who directed the furnishing of answers.

The petitioner contends that answers were furnished through Exts.

P9 and P6 dated 26.11.2022 and 08.11.2022, respectively.

WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:43649

3. Again dissatisfied with the reply given, the 5 th

respondent moved a Second Appeal before the State Information

Commission, which, by the impugned orders, found that the

information directed was not furnished and imposed a penalty of

Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only). The Commission

further directed that appropriate disciplinary action be initiated

and instructed the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, to

transfer the petitioner to another office within Wayanad District.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, the

complainant, submits that even in the first request made by him on

19.09.2022, he had sought information, and the defence of the

petitioner that only a blank cover was sent is wrong. It was on his

failure to answer the request sought by the petitioner that led to

the passing of the impugned orders, and the same calls for no

interference.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State

Information Commission would argue that the overall conduct of WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:43649

the petitioner demonstrates a total lack of respect for the

provisions of the Act and also for the orders passed by the Officers

under the Act. His attitude is clear from the findings rendered in

Ext.P2. He did not even appear before the State Information

Commission and had to be summoned through the District Collector

and the District Police Chief concerned. When he was asked why he

did not appear on the previous posting, he answered that the

Commission could have passed an ex parte order. It is under such

circumstances that power under Section 20 was invoked by the

Commissioner, and appropriate orders passed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jacob

P. Alex, the learned Standing Counsel, Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy for

the respondents and Sri. Shiju Varghese, the learned counsel for the

fifth respondent, and Sri M Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for

the State Information Commission.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since

what the petitioner received was only a blank cover, there was no WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:43649

request within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act and in the

absence of the same, no answer was required to be furnished under

Section 7 of the Act. It is also his submission that the mere fact that

he had replied stating that he had only received a blank cover

cannot be taken either as an answer under Section 7 or the

petitioner being attributed with any delay in responding. When the

petitioner made a proper application, it was duly answered. Despite

the above, the petitioner had also tendered an unconditional

apology as seen from Ext.P14. It is also argued that the punitive

measures suggested under Ext.P20 under Section 20 of the Act was

not warranted at all on the facts of the case and relies on the

judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Manohar S/o Manikrao

Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2012) 13 SCC 14] to

contend that the provisions relating to penalty or penal

consequences have to be construed strictly.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State

Information Commission, apart from reiterating the contentions WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:43649

noted above, also argued that the attempt of the petitioner

throughout was to disregard the provisions of the Act. It is seen

from a reading of Ext.P1 that on the very day the petitioner

received the alleged blank cover, if he wanted to show that he had

acted promptly, he could have at least telephoned the complainant

or given a reply without waiting for the 29 th day, which itself shows

the mala fides in the actions of the petitioner. That apart, the

disrespect shown to the State Information Commission is recorded

in the proceedings and which are not disputed in the writ petition.

He also argues that despite the direction in Ext.P1 to furnish

documents, to date, the same has not been furnished to the

complainant.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent,

Sri. Shiju Varghese also argues that the petitioner attempted to

deny information, and he supports the contention on behalf of the

State Information Commission that the conduct of the petitioner

throughout exhibits scant respect to the provisions of the Act and WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:43649

the orders passed in appeal.

10. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and

perusing the records, it has to be seen that there is a serious dispute

on whether any first information was sought on 19.09.2022 through

an alleged blank envelope. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the cover was weighed and the same was

noticed in the order of the First Appellate Authority, which clearly

showed that it was the minimum weight of a cover, with no other

enclosures in it. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

State Information Commission and the 5 th respondent submits that

20 grams is fixed as the minimum weight for fixing the slab for the

charges; it does not mean that an empty envelope always weighs 20

grams. Be that as it may, in the absence of any concrete proof of the

5th respondent having sent a request as mandated under Section 6,

the petitioner cannot be blamed for not answering the first request

made by the 5th respondent. Given the above finding, the

punishment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- cannot be sustained and the WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:43649

same is quashed.

11. Having said that, it has to be found that even with

respect to the second request sent by the 5th respondent, the answer

was given only after the Ext P8 directions of the First Appellate

Authority. Under normal circumstances, the petitioner, on

receiving the second request, could have acted promptly and

replied to all the information sought. That apart, there is no

averment in the writ petition that the findings made in Ext.P2 about

the conduct of the petitioner when he was summoned for a hearing

are wrong. In the absence of a denial of the said

findings/observations in Ext.P2, it has to be taken as admitted. The

said conduct of the petitioner is more than enough to award a

punishment under Section 20 of the Act, since the said conduct

warranted a disciplinary action. The conduct of the petitioner,

therefore, has to be taken as malafidely denying the request for

information or knowingly with incorrect, incomplete or misleading

information or destroying information, which was the subject WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 10 2025:KER:43649

matter of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the

information, which are all grounds for recommending disciplinary

action against the officer, under the service rules applicable to him,

going by Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, that part of the

impugned order, which recommended disciplinary action, is

perfectly in order.

12. Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed only to the

extent it imposed a fine of Rs 25000/-. The other directions in the

impugned orders are maintained.

The writ petition is allowed in part as above.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

DMR/-

 WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023        11             2025:KER:43649




               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40046/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AP 2182
                   (1)/2022/SIC    IN  FILE   NO.16891/SIC-

GEN4/2022 DATED 15.05.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER VIDE NO.AP Exhibit P2 2182 (1)/2022/SIC IN FILE NO.16891/SIC- GEN4/2022 DATED 06.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT IN THE ENVELOPE RECEIVED ON 22.09.2022

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2022 SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.10.2022 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.11.2022 SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY REGISTERED POST

TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.10.2022 Exhibit P7 ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2022 Exhibit P8 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER SENT WP(C) NO. 40046 OF 2023 12 2025:KER:43649

ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS DATED 26.11.2022

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.09.2022 ALONG WITH REPLY DATED 12.10.2022

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/APPEAL DATED 04.11.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.12.2022 Exhibit P12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.06.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.10.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE