IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10163 of 2009(M)
1. K.A.NARAYANAN, (RTD) TECHNICIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
4. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
5. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (P) &
6. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (RIA) & ADDITIONAL
For Petitioner :SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.10163 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 30th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard both sides.
2. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5.
3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Ext.P2
application invoking the Right to Information Act, seeking disclosure
of information about the action that was taken by the respondents
on Ext.P1 notice. Reply was given by the 5th respondent as per
Ext.P3. The petitioner was not satisfied with the reply and therefore
filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 6th respondent. By Ext.P5, the 5th
respondent, who had passed Ext.P3 order, himself has disposed of
Ext.P4 appeal.
4. Thus a reading of Exts.P3 & P5 shows that both the
orders are passed by Shri.N.Govindan, PIO(P) and Senior Divisional
Personnel Officer/PGT. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that
the original authority has dealt with the appeal also. This is clearly
erroneous and for that reason I quash Ext.P5.
5. The 6th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 and
WP(C) No.10163/2009
-2-
pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg