The State Information Commission vs Mohammed Sirajuddin.C on 21 December, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2409 of 2006()


1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MOHAMMED SIRAJUDDIN.C.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :21/12/2006

 O R D E R
            V.K.Bali,C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair,J.

            ---------------------------------------------------

                           W.A.No.2409 of 2006

             -------------------------------------------------

             Dated, this the 21st day of December, 2006


                                JUDGMENT

V.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral)

We are surprised why the appellant at all has filed this

appeal. The petitioner, now arrayed as 1st respondent in the

present appeal, only sought a direction to the appellant to

dispose of Exhibit P4 appeal. The operative part of the order

impugned in the present appeal reads as follows:-

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the

2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders

on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. While doing so, the 2nd respondent shall

also consider the question as to whether it is necessary

to impose penalty on the 1st respondent for giving

incorrect information, if the 2nd respondent has powers to

do so under the Right to Information Act.

The writ petition is disposed of as above”.

2. Counsel for the appellant contends that no occasion

had arisen for the learned Single Judge to give directions as

reproduced above, as no request was made by the writ petitioner

before the appellant for disposal of the appeal. This argument

W.A.No.2409 of 2006 – 2 –

may not be correct as it is not necessary that the petitioner must

seek disposal of his lis by the concerned authority and then only

approach the High Court for directions. Even otherwise, such

directions are given considering the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, which again do not require any prior

request to be made for give such directions to the concerned

authority. No merits. Dismissed.

V.K.Bali

Chief Justice

C.N.Ramachandran Nair

Judge

vku/-