Dismissed

P.v.Isaac v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2018WP(C)/21029/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writs to quash an RTI order, direct penal action for falsification, and claim disciplinary action against the respondent PIO. The petitioner filed a submission before the court on 17-07-2018 that the writ petition may be closed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the High Court recorded the subject submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition (Civil) is dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.

P.v.Isaac Vs State of Kerala — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 21029 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

P.V.ISAAC, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, M.P.TOURS & TRAVELS SERVICE, MARACHERIPUTHEYATH HOUSE, MANNAMKANDOM.P.O., 200' ACRE, ADIMALY, PIN - 685 561.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.PADAYATTEE YELDO

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. SRI.P.M. BINUKUMAR, STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TURBO PLUS TOWER, P.M.G. JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, S.C R3 BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Msd.

¶13

18.07.2018

¶14

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶15

==================

¶16

W.P.(C).No. 21029 of 2018

¶17

==================

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2018 J U D G M E N T

¶19

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶20

“a. To call for all the records and other documents in connection with Exhibit P-1 application leading to issuance of Ext.P-8 from the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order, direction or command quashing Ext.P-8 Order affected by total dereliction of duty in complying with the procedures laid down under Right to Information Act 2005 and The Kerala State Information Commission (Procedure for Appeal) Rules, 2006 and or

¶21

b. To pass an order commanding and directing 1^st respondent and or any other appropriate authority/forum to take penal action for the malafide falsification of Ext.P-2 against the 3^rd respondent as contemplated under section 20(1) of Right to Information Act and or

¶22

c. To pass an order giving direction and command to the 1^st respondent State with a recommendation for taking departmental disciplinary action under section 20(2) of Right to Information Act against the 3^rd respondent under the relevant Service Rules prevails and or

¶23

d. To issue a Writ or Mandamus or any other writ order or direction declaring that there is total failure in discharging the duty cast upon the respondents as the very purpose of the intention of legislature under Right to Information Act is denied to the petitioner and or

¶24

e. To allow the petitioner to recover and receive costs and other incidental charges incurred by the petitioner from the respondents and or

¶25

f. To allow such other further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶26

Notice before admission in this case was issued, which has been duly served on R-3. R-3 has now entered appearance through its counsel and has also filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 7.7.2018 and has produced therewith documents as per Exts.R- 3(a) to R-3 (o).

¶27

Heard Sri.Padayattee Yeldo, learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the writ petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt.

¶29

W.P.(C).21029/18 - : 2 :-

¶30

Pleader appearing for R-1, Sri.M.Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission appearing for R-2 and Sri.Sreeprakash K.Nair, learned counsel appearing for R-3.

¶31

Sri.Padayattee Yeldo, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits on the basis of the instructions of his party that the above Writ Petition (Civil) may be closed as withdrawn. In the light of the abovesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, this Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed as withdrawn.

¶32

sdk+

¶33

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶34

P.S. to Judge

P.v.Isaac v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Isaac v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Abdul Azeez Vs Sri.Vasantharaj

Rasmi Shibu Vs the Sub Collector

Dr.Pushpangadan Vs State of Kerala

Mustafa V.P. Vs District Collector, Ernakulam

South Kerala Province of the Order of the Discalced Carmelites Religious and Charitable Trust Vs the State of Kerala

V. Prabhakaran Vs National Highway Authority