Allowed
The Public Information Officer v. Joseph Benedict Benny
Kerala HCRP/701/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938
RP.No. 701 of 2016
WP(C) 1533/2016, DATED 15-01-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:
1. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,FOT KOCHI- 682 001.
2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KOCHI TALUK, FORT KOCHI - 682 001.
3. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, FORT KOCHI- 682 001.
4. VILLAGE OFFICER. RAMESWARAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PIN- 682 001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT :
1. JOSEPH BENEDICT BENNY @ BENNY S/O LATE JOHN, CHETTIVELIKKAKATH HOUSE, H.NO.17/903, MUNDAMVELI P.O., ERNAKULAM- 682 507.
2. DYNATIOUS @ DAINY, S/O LATE C.A. JOHN, CHETTIVELIKKAKATH HOUSE, H.NO.17/903, MUNDAMVELI P.O., ERNAKULAM- 682 507
3. THE KERALA STATE INORMATION COMMISSION, REP. BY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 039.
R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE R3 BY SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
RP.No. 701 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
A1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE BTR A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE TANDAPER A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECORDS SHOWING DIWAN PESHKAR UP TO 1947
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS.45/2013 ANNEXURE R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/4/14 ANNEXURE R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/2/2008 ANNEXURE R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND BTR REGISTER OBTAINED UNDER R.I. ACT.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
R.P. No. 701 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 1533 of 2016
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2016
O R D E R
by the non issuance of the details regarding 'patta'. It appears that the petitioners moved the revenue authorities under the Right to Information Act. However, it was responded stating that the files are missing. Considering the fact that 'patta' was issued, this Court directed the revenue authorities to take action to regenerate 'patta' after adverting to the records.
R.P. No. 701 of 2016
..2..
possible for the State to regenerate 'patta'. It is pointed out that the 'Diwan Peshkar' administrated office from Thrissur Taluk. It is submitted that in the absence of the file, the State is unable to regenerate 'patta'
4.Having considered the fact that the State is not in the possession of the file in relation to 'patta', this Court is of the view that the judgment dated 15.01.2016 in WP (C) No.1533/2016 has to be reviewed. Further, it is to be noted that the State could have responded to the petitioners when they made enquiries regarding 'patta'. Unfortunately, they moved different levels to get the details. If the fact that the State is not in possession of the records was revealed, this Court could not have directed the revenue officials to regenerate 'patta'.
5.Therefore, the review petition is allowed and accordingly, the judgment dated 15.01.2016 in WP(C) No.1533/2016 is recalled.
Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
bka/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed by the State against a direction to generate 'patta' registers should be allowed given the absence of records.
State of Kerala
Joseph Benedict Benny @ Benny
Dynatious @ Dainy
Kerala State Information Commission
Public Information Officer, Revenue Divisional Office
Public Information Officer & Additional Tahsildar Kochi Taluk
A. Mu. Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court