Dismissed

Rajeev Viswan v. State Information Commissioner

Kerala HC21 Jul 2011WA/1031/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal filed by a Society Secretary challenging the State Information Commission’s order to disclose enquiry proceedings. The court upheld the commission’s decision that the documents regarding the second respondent’s dismissal were exigible.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; order of the Single Judge upholding the State Information Commissioner’s direction to give copies is affirmed.

Rajeev Viswan Vs State Information… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

WA.No. 1031 of 2011()

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15464/2011 Dated 09/06/2011

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

RAJEEV VISWAN, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & SECRRETARY IN CHARGE IVERKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.2006 IVERKALA EAST P.O. PUTHOOR, KOLLAM-691507.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039

¶14

MRS. K.R. SHYNY, KUTTYIL VEEDU, IVERKALA EAST.P.O., PUTHOOR ROAD, KOLLAM-691507.

¶15

ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC FOR R1

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶18

Writ Appeal No.1031 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011.

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶21

Appeal is filed by the Secretary of the Society challenging the decision of the State Information Commission directing the Society to give copies of proceedings taken against the second respondent. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and have also gone through the judgment.

¶22

The second respondent was a Peon in the Society wherefrom

¶23

she is removed based on findings in the enquiry. The second respondent's case is that appellant stands charge sheeted for violence against her. Documents sought for are only proceedings and decisions taken against the second respondent by the managing committee of the Society. We do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the State Information Commissioner's order to give copies of the decisions taken by the

¶24

¶25

managing committee pertaining to her. Consequently Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶26

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶27

P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge

¶28

pms

Rajeev Viswan v. State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Viswan v. State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Kap (India) Projects Constructions

Cini Singh Vs State of Kerala

Meena Ashokan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sapna Maria Gomez Vs the University of Kerala and Another

Aneesha Remesh Vs State of Kerala

T.Haridasan Vs Union of India and Another