Disposed

Public Information Officer,Uty.of Calicu v. Sate Information Commission and Another

Kerala HC4 Jul 2013WP(C)/11547/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a direction to a university to furnish individual question paper marks. The Court held that due to efflux of time, no effective order could be passed. The university was directed not to destroy records if information was sought within the prescribed period. The student respondent did not appear.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without expressing opinion on merits; University directed not to destroy records if information is sought within the prescribed period.

Public Information Officer,Uty.of Calicu Vs Sate… — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 11547 of 2008 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONERS :

¶7

-----------

¶8

1. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM MALAPPURAM (REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT).

¶9

2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶11

SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY

¶12

RESPONDENTS :

¶13

-----------

¶14

1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. M.V.SUJANA, MANAKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KIDAKULANGARA, URAKAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 562.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 11547 of 2008 (Y)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶22

P1:	COPY OF THE REQUISITION DT 27/11/2006 OF THE PETITION.
P2:	COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY DT 15/12/2006.
P3:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DT 08/1/2007
P4:	COPY OF THE COMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR DT 16/1/2007.
P5:	COPY OF THE COMMUNCATION ISSUED BY THE R1 DT 17/7/2007.
P6:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DT 11/2/2008.
P7:	COPY OF THE NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
P8:	COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.303/2007/SIC.
P9:	COPY OF GTHE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION IN APPEAL NO.CIC/WB/A2006/00469 & CONNECTED CASES.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.11547 OF 2008

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioners approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P8 order issued by the first respondent directing the petitioners to furnish the copies of marks of the individual questions to the second respondent within one week from the date of Ext.P8 order.

¶32

Heard learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University. I have gone through the materials available on record.

¶33

There is no dispute that the University is amenable with the Right to Information Act. Due to the efflux of time, no effective order can be passed in this writ petition directing the University to provide information sought for by the second respondent/student. Moreover, it appears that the student is not interested to contest the case and she has not appeared in this case.

¶34

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the direction given in the impugned order cannot be implemented at this time. However, it is made clear that once an

¶35

W.P.(C)No.11547 OF 2008

¶36

:: 2 ::

¶37

information is sought for within the prescribed period, the University should not destroy the records taking aid of Rule.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶40

jes

Public Information Officer,Uty.of Calicu v. Sate Information Commission and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Public Information Officer,Uty.of Calicu v. Sate Information Commission and Another

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

N.Manikantan Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Rev.Fr.Joseph Jose Vs the M.G.University

Muraleedharan V.B. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. Vs K.S.E.Board.

Jacob Thomas Vs Chairman

Ajitha T.J. Vs State of Kerala