{"id":102979,"date":"2009-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-26T17:07:37","modified_gmt":"2017-03-26T11:37:37","slug":"b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information … on 2 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information … on 2 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 31039 of 2009(Y)\n\n\n1. B.SAJIKUMAR, S\/O. LATE BHASKARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.\n\n3. K.B.KAIMAL, MANGALATH HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :02\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.\n                             ---------------------------\n                         W.P.(C) No. 31039 OF 2009\n                             --------------------------\n                Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Heard Sri. V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, Sri.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
Kerala State Information Commission and Sri. P.N.Santhosh, the learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.<\/p>\n
       2. The petitioner is the Village Officer of Kottangal Village. In that<\/p>\n
capacity, he was also the State Public Information Officer of that office.<\/p>\n
The third respondent submitted an application dated 3.1.2009 before the<\/p>\n
petitioner for the photostat copy of a resurvey plan under the Right to<\/p>\n
Information Act, 2005.      The petitioner did not furnish the information<\/p>\n
sought within the stipulated period of 30 days,           The third respondent<\/p>\n
thereupon filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 6.4.2009 before the State<\/p>\n
Information Commission.       On receipt of Ext.P1 complaint, the        State<\/p>\n
Information Commission sent Ext.P2 letter to the petitioner enclosing a<\/p>\n
copy of Ext.P1 complaint and informed him that failure to furnish the<\/p>\n
information sought within 30 days will amount to violation of Section 7(1)<\/p>\n
of the Act and that it is also punishable under Section 20 of the Act. The<\/p>\n
petitioner furnished the information sought on 5.5.2009. In the meanwhile,<\/p>\n
besides the period of 30 days for furnishing the information, another<\/p>\n
period of 87 days had passed.             The State Information Commission<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 31039\/09
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
thereupon issued notice to the petitioner, heard him on 25.7.2009 and<\/p>\n
passed Ext.P4 order dated 28.7.2009 imposing on the petitioner the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.21,750\/- as fine calculated at the rate of Rs.250\/- per day for a period of<\/p>\n
87 days. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
      3.   The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 on three grounds. The first<\/p>\n
contention is that if the third respondent was aggrieved by the delay in<\/p>\n
furnishing the information, he ought to have filed an appeal under Section<\/p>\n
19 of the Act before the first appellate authority, instead of straight away<\/p>\n
moving the State Information Commission, which is the second appellate<\/p>\n
authority.  The second contention is that within the time fixed by the<\/p>\n
Commission in Ext.P2 letter, the information sought was furnished and<\/p>\n
therefore there is no justification to impose any punishment. In my opinion<\/p>\n
there is no merit in the said contentions. The petitioner does not dispute<\/p>\n
that fact that the information sought was not furnished within 30 days. His<\/p>\n
only explanation to that is due to pressure of work he could not furnish the<\/p>\n
information in time. In this context it is relevant to note that on receipt of<\/p>\n
the application the petitioner did not even sent a reply to the third<\/p>\n
respondent. He kept quite. He acted on the third respondent’s application<\/p>\n
more than two moths after the expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days<\/p>\n
and that too after the State Information Commission informed him that the<\/p>\n
Act stipulates a time limit of 30 days and that failure to furnish information<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 31039\/09
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
within that time limit is punishable. The petitioner thereafter furnished the<\/p>\n
information sought by the third respondent on 5.5.2009. The mere fact that<\/p>\n
the petitioner acted on the direction issued by the State Information<\/p>\n
Commission and furnished the information shortly thereafter cannot have<\/p>\n
the effect of compliance with Section 7(1) of the Act. I therefore find no<\/p>\n
merit in the contention of the petitioner that as he had furnished the<\/p>\n
information pursuant to the direction in Ext.P2, no action will lie against him<\/p>\n
under section 20 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       4. I shall now deal with the contention of the petitioner that the third<\/p>\n
respondent should have moved the first appellate authority instead of<\/p>\n
moving the      State Information Commission.        Section 18 of the Act<\/p>\n
empowers the State Information Commission to enquire into a complaint<\/p>\n
that there has been no response to the request to furnish information<\/p>\n
within the time limit specified under Section 7(1) of the Act. Section 7(2) of<\/p>\n
the Act states that if the information sought is not furnished within the time<\/p>\n
limit of 30 days, the application should be deemed to have been refused.<\/p>\n
Therefore by operation of law a deeming friction is created under which the<\/p>\n
person seeking information is given the right to file an appeal before the<\/p>\n
first appellate authority under Section 19 of the Act even though the original<\/p>\n
authority may not have rejected the application. The mere fact that a<\/p>\n
person seeking information is entitled to prefer an appeal on the 31st day<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 31039\/09
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
after his application for information was submitted is not a ground to hold<\/p>\n
that the State Information Commission is denuded of its power to enquire<\/p>\n
into a complaint that there has been no response to the request for<\/p>\n
information or access to information within the time limit of 30 days. It is<\/p>\n
open to the person seeking information to move the State Information<\/p>\n
Commission complaining about the inaction of the State Public Information<\/p>\n
Officer, instead of filing an appeal. The remedies are concurrent and the<\/p>\n
mere fact that an appeal lies after the expiry of 30 days to the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority is no ground to hold that the State Information Commission<\/p>\n
cannot exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 18 of the Act,<\/p>\n
before the first appeal is disposed of. I therefore overrule the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
contention that the third respondent ought to have filed an appeal under<\/p>\n
Section 19 of the Act before the first appellate authority instead of straight<\/p>\n
away moving the State Information Commission.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The last contention urged is that the petitioner has not without<\/p>\n
reasonable cause declined to furnish the information. Ext.P4 discloses that<\/p>\n
the petitioner was heard on 25.7.2009. His only answer to the complaint<\/p>\n
levelled against him was that due to pressure of work in the office, he could<\/p>\n
not furnish the information in time. Apart from that contention he had no<\/p>\n
other explanation for the delay in furnishing the information. If the said<\/p>\n
ground is taken as a reasonable explanation, every Government servant<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 31039\/09
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
can escape from the consequences of non disposal of applications for<\/p>\n
information within the period of 30 days by pleading that he had attend to<\/p>\n
other official duties and therefore he could not furnish the information<\/p>\n
sought within 30 days. After the Right to Information Act was enacted and<\/p>\n
brought into force, every Government servant who is designated as the<\/p>\n
State Public Information Officer is bound to discharge the duty cast on him<\/p>\n
under the Act. He cannot decline to take any action on the requests under<\/p>\n
the Right to Information Act on the ground that he has other duties to<\/p>\n
attend to. As the State Public Information Officer, the petitioner has a duty<\/p>\n
to discharge his functions under the Right to Information Act also.<\/p>\n
Therefore the mere fact that there was pressure of work on the petitioner,<\/p>\n
is not a ground to hold that he was not bound to furnish the information<\/p>\n
within the stipulated period of 30 days.      Further, all that the the third<\/p>\n
respondent had asked for was a photostat copy of a resurvey plan. The<\/p>\n
petitioner could have passed orders on the third respondent’s application<\/p>\n
and directed the staff in his office to implement it. It was not necessary for<\/p>\n
the petitioner himself to take the photostat copy and hand it over to the<\/p>\n
applicant. I am therefore not inclined to accept the petitioner’s contention<\/p>\n
that he was prevented by           reasonable cause from furnishing the<\/p>\n
information sought within the stipulated period of 30 days. The State<\/p>\n
Information Commission has in Ext.P4 categorically found that the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 31039\/09
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The said finding<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be a perverse finding warranting interference.<\/p>\n
       6. The State Information Commission has by Ext.4 order imposed a<\/p>\n
fine of Rs.21,750\/- on the petitioner. The petitioner being a Government<\/p>\n
servant and a Village Officer will be put to serious prejudice if the said<\/p>\n
amount is recovered from him in lump. I am therefore of the opinion that<\/p>\n
the petitioner should be permitted to pay the sum of Rs.21,750\/- in five qual<\/p>\n
monthly installments.\n<\/p>\n
       In the result, even while declining to interfere with Ext.P4, I dispose<\/p>\n
of this writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner<\/p>\n
remitting the sum of Rs.21,750\/- in five equal monthly installments<\/p>\n
commencing from 10th December 2009 onwards, recovery proceedings<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. The first installment shall be<\/p>\n
paid on or before 10.12.2009 and the remaining installments on the 10th of<\/p>\n
every succeeding English calender month. If the 10th of any month is a<\/p>\n
holiday, payment shall be made on the next working day. It is clarified that<\/p>\n
if the petitioner commits default in remitting any two consecutive<\/p>\n
installments, the amount remaining unpaid can be recovered from him in<\/p>\n
lump.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
vps<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 31039\/09
\n                        7<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information … on 2 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 31039 of 2009(Y) 1. B.SAJIKUMAR, S\/O. LATE BHASKARAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, … Respondent 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. K.B.KAIMAL, MANGALATH HOUSE, For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.M.AJAY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information ... on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information ... on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-26T11:37:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information … on 2 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-26T11:37:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1463,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009\",\"name\":\"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information ... on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-26T11:37:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information … on 2 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information ... on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information ... on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-26T11:37:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information … on 2 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-26T11:37:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009"},"wordCount":1463,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009","name":"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information ... on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-26T11:37:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-sajikumar-vs-kerala-state-information-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Sajikumar vs Kerala State Information … on 2 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102979"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102979\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}