R.Jayamohanan vs R.N.Dhar on 25 May, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26979 of 2008(J)


1. R.JAYAMOHANAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. R.N.DHAR, GENERAL MANAGER CUM COMPANY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DR.TAMAL DATTA CHAUDHURI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :25/05/2010

 O R D E R
                 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                         &
                    S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
                     -------------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.26979 OF 2008
                  -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010


                              JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.The writ petitioner invoked the provisions of the Right to

Information Act and required the respondent, an officer of

the Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. to give certain

information relating to M/s.Sudarsan Clay & Ceramics Ltd.

Ultimately, the parties were before the Central Information

Commissioner and the Commissioner had issued a direction

that the petitioner be given a copy of the materials sought for

by him in spite of the fact that certain other materials were

earlier furnished.

2.This writ petition is footed on the allegation that the officials

of IIBI are not giving effect to the decision of the Central

Information Commissioner. We are clear in our mind that no

WPC.26979/08.

2

writ of mandamus or other direction would be issued as a

further whip to obey the command of the Central Information

Commissioner. This is all the more so because when an order

issued under the Right To Information Act by the competent

authority is not complied with, the said statute has sufficient

teeth to reach at the erring persons who fail to obey the

command in terms of that statute.

With the aforesaid, we did not find any ground to entertain

this writ petition. This writ petition is hence dismissed

without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the

competent authority under the Right To Information Act as

against the respondents in accordance with law.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
Judge.

kkb.31/05.