Disposed

P.R. Mohandas v. the State Information Commissioner

Kerala HC8 Nov 2013WP(C)/4902/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-finalization of steps under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner complained that despite an order directing furnish of details and subsequent steps within three months, no action was taken for over 1.5 years. The Court directed the first respondent to complete the proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent was directed to take further steps pursuant to Ext.P7 and pass final orders at the earliest, but within three months.

P.R. Mohandas Vs the State Information Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 4902 of 2013 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

--------------

¶8

P.R. MOHANDAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, PORUVELI HOUSE, PORUVELI ROAD, KOCHI-682018. BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): -------------

¶10

1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011

¶12

3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.

¶13

4. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & SUPERINTENDENT, REVENUE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ZONAL OFFICE, PACHALAM, KOCHI-682012.

¶14

5. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011, RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

R2-R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUTINE, BY M.AJAY,STANDING COUNSEL, R1, BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE & BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, SC,COCHIN CORPORATION.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

RVS/

¶18

WP(C).No. 4902 of 2013 (K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

------------------------

¶22

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER	APPLICATION BEFORE R5.	DATED 19/03/2010 SUBMITTED
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE	APPEAL DATE R2.	D 28/04/2010 FILED BY THE
EXT. P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 1	9/05/2010 ISSUED BY R2.
EXT. P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER FROM R	REPLY DATED 3.	03/06/2010 RECEIVED BY THE
EXT. P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER BE	APPEAL DATED FORE R1.	22/06/2010 SUBMITTED BY
EXT. P6	: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER.	REPLY DATED	25/03/2010 RECEIVED BY THE
EXT. P7	: TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.	ORDER DATED	08/06/2012 ISSUED BY THE

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

------------------------

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs/

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

¶31

W.P.(c) No.4902 OF 2013

¶32

¶33

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2013

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Non-finalisation of the steps pursuant to Ext.P7 order passed by

¶36

the first respondent in the second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the said respondent forms the subject matter of challenge in this

¶37

writ petition.

¶38

The sequence of events described by the petitioner in the

¶39

writ petition shows that Ext.P1 application was filed before the fifth respondent seeking for some particulars with regard to the construction of the building by one P.N.Joy invoking the remedy under the Right to Information Act. Since the opinion sought for was not furnished, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. While so, some communication was issued to the petitioner as borne by Exts.P3 and P4 that some of the information sought for by the petitioner had to be obtained from various offices. Since the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed in conformity with the provisions of

¶40

W.P.(C)No.4902/2013 2

¶41

the statute, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 second appeal before the first respondent. After considering the facts and figures, the first respondent passed Ext.P7 order dated 8/6/2012, wherein it has been observed that nobody had turned up before the said respondent from the fifth respondent Corporation and further that there was serious lapse on the part of the Public Information Officer concerned. It was in the said circumstances, that particulars of the concerned officers, the present post held by them, the place of posting and such other details were required to be furnished, giving necessary direction to the Deputy

¶42

Secretary of the Corporation. It is also mentioned in Ext.P7 that, subject to availability of the said materials, further proceedings will be taken in tune with Section 20(1)(2) of the Right to Information Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the lapse of nearly 1 ½ years, no further steps have been taken by the first respondent and hence the writ petition.

¶43

Eventhough a counter affidavit has been filed from the part

¶44

of the fifth respondent, no satisfactory explanation is forth coming as to the further course and events. In the said circumstances, this Court

¶45

W.P.(C)No.4902/2013

¶46

¶47

finds that the proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion by the first respondent. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take further steps pursuant to Ext.P7 and pass final

¶48

orders at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a

¶51

copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶52

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶53

sv.

¶54

W.P.(C)No.4902/2013 4

P.R. Mohandas v. the State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R. Mohandas v. the 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

Ajit Nair Vs Bar Council of India

V.Hamza Vs State Level Committee

M/S Padma Agencies Vs Secretary to the Government and 4 Others

M/S.Rainbow Events Vs Sreenivasan.v.

Susamma Xavier Vs Mr.Ajith Kumar

Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala