IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29989 of 2009(P)
1. V.P.PRATHEEPAN, S/O.V.A.PRABHAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR-VIGILANCE, DIRECTORATE OF
3. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
4. APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VACB,
For Petitioner :SMT.M.M.JASMIN
For Respondent :SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :23/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.29989 of 2009-P
------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Smt.M.M.Jasmin, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing for the
State Information Commission.
2. The petitioner applied to the State Public Information Officer
of the Home Department for copies of a vigilance enquiry report of the
year 1991 and the accompanying documents. The vigilance enquiry
report alone was given. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal before
the State Information Commission. On the said appeal, the State
Information Commission passed Ext.P5 order directing the State Public
Information Officer of the Home Department to give a copy of the
statements available in the files free of cost. After the statement was
received the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 petition before the State
information Commission, wherein he requested the Commission to
summon the officers who conducted the vigilance enquiry and to direct
them to furnish copies of the original witness statements as taken down
by them. The petitioner also prayed that penalty be imposed on the
officers as contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The
said request was rejected and the decision rejecting the request was
W.P(C) No.29989 of 2009-P 2
communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P1 letter dated 21.8.2009. In this
writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 and seeks a direction to the
second respondent to furnish copies of the statements of witnesses
recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
3. Sri.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel for the State
Information Commission submits that the State Information Commission
has no jurisdiction to suo motu enquire and decide whether the
information furnished by the State Public Information Officer is
incomplete or false. He submits that if the petitioner has a case that the
information furnished is incomplete, misleading or false, the remedy of
the petitioner is to file a complaint under Section 18(1)(e) of the Right to
Information Act 2005. He also submits that if the petitioner files such a
complaint, the State Information Commission will consider it and pass
orders thereon in accordance with law.
4. In my opinion, in the absence of such a complaint, the State
Information Commission cannot acting on Ext.P7 re-open the appeal
heard and disposed of by it. In Ext.P7 and in the writ petition, the case of
the petitioner is that the State Public Information Officer has given
incomplete, misleading and false information. If that be so his remedy is
to move the State Information Commission by filing a complaint under
Section 18(I)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In such
W.P(C) No.29989 of 2009-P 3
circumstances, I find no grounds to entertain this writ petition.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a complaint under Section
18(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
PA TO JUDGE
ab