IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24858 of 2009(B)
1. K.KARUNANIDHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :15/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No. 24858/2009 – B
—————————————-
Dated 15th September, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Sri.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing
for the first respondent and Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner had on 26.7.2008 submitted the original of
Ext.P1 application to the third respondent seeking information under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act’ for short). According to the petitioner, since the information
sought for was in relation to the service particulars of the Assistant
Commissioner of Land Revenue, the third respondent herein, the
said application was destroyed. The petitioner thereupon sent
another application through courier. The third respondent refused
to accept the said application. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P3
appeal before the first appellate authority, namely, the second
respondent. According to the petitioner, though the appeal was
heard on 28.11.2008, orders were not passed thereon. Aggrieved
thereby, he filed Ext.P5 second appeal before the State Information
W.P.(C) No.24858/2009 2
Commission. On receipt of Ext.P5, the State Information
Commission registered it as a complaint and sought the remarks of
the second respondent. The second respondent accordingly
furnished Ext.P6 reply. A copy thereof was forwarded by the State
Information Commission to the petitioner along with the original of
Ext.P8 letter dated 3.2.2009. The petitioner was also called upon to
furnish his remarks in the matter. According to the petitioner, he
had on receipt of Ext.P8 letter and a copy of Ext.P6 reply,
submitted Ext.P9 reply to the first respondent. The first respondent,
however, rejected Ext.P5 complaint on the short ground that the
petitioner did not reply to Ext.P8 letter. In this writ petition, the
petitioner challenges Ext.P11 and seeks a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P5
appeal and pass orders thereon in accordance with law.
3. Sri.M.Ajay, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent submits, on instructions, that the original of Ext.P9 was
not received in the office of the State Commission though the
petitioner claims that it was sent through courier. He however
submits that the State Information Commission will reconsider
Ext.P5 appeal which has been registered as a complaint (Complaint
Petition No.1355(2)/2008/SIC) having regard to the statements in
W.P.(C) No.24858/2009 3
Ext.P9 and take a decision thereon after affording the petitioner and
respondents 2 and 3 a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In
the light of the said submission, the petitioner cannot, in my
opinion, have any surviving grievance.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to
the State Information Commission to re-consider Ext.P5 petition
(Complaint Petition No.1355(2)/2008/SIC) and pass revised orders
thereon after affording the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, a
reasonable opportunity of being heard. It will be open to the
petitioner to file a written submission incorporating all his
contentions. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within three
months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified
copy of this judgment before the Secretary of the State Information
Commission.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa