Petitioner challenged a penalty order under the RTI Act for inordinate delay. The High Court upheld the order's jurisdiction but modified the penalty amount to Rs. 5,000, acknowledging the petitioner's seniority and the early stages of the Act's implementation.
Penalty reduced to Rs. 5,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/12TH BHADRA, 1937
WP(C).No. 21355 of 2008 (P)
PETITIONER:
PROFESSOR SREEVARAHOM BALAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER
RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21355 of 2008 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.21355 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who was the Public Relations Officer, Kerala Raj Bhavan, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the State Information Commission, Kerala. The order of the State Information Commission, finding that the petitioner had caused inordinate delay in providing information under the Act, is under challenge on the ground that it is unsustainable and lacking in jurisdiction. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay penalty of Rs.25,000/-, failing which it would be recovered from his salary. When the writ petition was admitted, an order of interim stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P7 order was granted by this Court on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- out of the penalty within two weeks.
W.P.(C).No.21335 of 2008
2
Commission. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a senior citizen aged 81 and that at the time of issuance of the order in question, the machinery under the Right to Information Act was in its infancy and the petitioner did not fathom the extent of the powers of the authorities under the Act. It is further submitted that it was only when a complaint was submitted before the 1st respondent under Section 18 of the Act that the petitioner became aware of the seriousness of the situation and immediately thereafter he had provided the information as sought for by the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 reply before the 1st respondent pointing out the reasons for the delay which ought to have been considered favourably by the 1st respondent. Further it is urged that the amount of Rs.25,000/- is the maximum amount of fine imposable for an offence of the nature committed by the petitioner and the imposition of the maximum amount was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
W.P.(C).No.21335 of 2008
3
urged that unless orders in the nature of Ext.P7 were issued by the first respondent the machinery under the Right to Information Act would not have attained the efficiency that it has today. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that there was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to have withheld the information and the conduct of the petitioner amounted to clear defiance of the powers and authority conferred under the Act. The attempt of the petitioner was only to defeat the implementation of the provisions of the Act, it is submitted.
W.P.(C).No.21335 of 2008
4
penalty shall be limited to the amount of Rs.5000/- already paid by the petitioner. If the amount of Rs.5,000/- has not actually been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be paid within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty under the Right to Information Act should be allowed.
Whether the maximum penalty imposed by the State Information Commission is justified given the petitioner's seniority and delay circumstances.
Whether the petitioner's interim payment should adjust the final penalty amount.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Professor Sreevarahom Balakrishnan
State Information Commission, Kerala
Adv.D.B.Binu
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
