High Court Kerala High Court

M.Asokan vs Chief Information Commissioner … on 7 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
M.Asokan vs Chief Information Commissioner … on 7 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21844 of 2008(A)


1. M.ASOKAN, ASOKA MANDIRAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :07/08/2008

 O R D E R
                      S.SIRI JAGAN, J
               ==================
                W.P(C)No.21844 of 2008
               ==================
         Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008.

                     J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order of the State

Information Commissioner whereby the petitioner’s appeal

against the order refusing issue copies of certain documents

sought for by him, was closed on the ground that in spite of

elaborate search the file relating to the same could not be

traced by the information officer concerned. The petitioner

now submits that the observation in Ext.P7 order to the

effect that the petitioner was not present at this time of

hearing, is not correct and he now seeks an opportunity of

being heard by the Commissioner. The learned Standing

Counsel for the Commissioner would submit that although

the statement therein that the petitioner was not present is

not correct, the order was not passed on that basis but on

the basis of the satisfaction that the concerned file could

not be traced in spite of the best efforts of the Government.

W.P(C)No.21844 of 2008 – 2 –

He would further submit that the respondents had filed

another affidavit stating that even after a fresh search no

positive results could be obtained. I am not going into the

merits of the case since it is now admitted before me that

fresh orders can be passed after hearing the petitioner.

Accordingly, Ext.P7 is quashed and the 1st respondent is

directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after granting

the petitioner a fresh opportunity of being heard.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs