Allowed

Subha.v v. the Chief Information Commissioner

Kerala HC22 Mar 2021WP(C)/4554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a penalty order imposed under the Right to Information Act on an Information Officer. Finding that the Commission failed to follow parameters laid down in the Court's previous decisions regarding penalty, the judge set aside the final order and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry with notice to both sides.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing penalty was set aside; the petitioner directed to give notice to both sides for a fresh hearing; final decision to be passed within one month.

Subha.v Vs the Chief Information Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C).No.4554 OF 2021(T)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUBHA.V AGED 40 YEARS D/O.K.A.VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT SURABHI, M.A.N. HOUSING COLONY, EZHUVATHIRUTHI, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM 679 577

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

3 THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAHSILDAR-PONNANI (THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY) THALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PONNANI NAGARAM P.O., MALAPPURAM 679 583

¶13

4 K.K.MOITHUNNI S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, KADUNGAM KUNNATH KATTIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM 679 578

¶14

SR.GP BIMAL K NATH, SC SRI M.AJAY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.4554 OF 2021(T)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner was the information officer in relation to a public office. By Ext.P3 order, the Chief Information Commissioner prima facie found that petitioner has violated the provisions of the Right to Information Act and was liable for action under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act. She was directed to give an explanation in writing before the Enquiry Commissioner and a reply was given. By Ext.P5 final order, it was held that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Hence, it was held that she was liable for penalty quantified at the rate of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only). She was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with intimation to the Secretary to the Information Commissioner. This is under challenge in this proceedings at the instance of the petitioner.

¶20

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the

¶21

WP(C).No.4554 OF 2021(T) 3

¶22

Information Commissioner in extenso, I am satisfied that the authority has failed to follow the parameters for imposing penalty laid down by this court in Chandramohanan Nair R Vs. State Information Commissioner and Others 2018 (5) KHC 707 as well as in P.J.Joseph Vs. The Kerala State Information Commissioner and Another (2020 KHC 4128). Accordingly, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P5, with a direction that the State Information Commission issue notice to both sides and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, consider the explanation and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the spirit contained in both the above decisions. The final decision shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of service of notice on both sides.

¶23

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶26

R.AV

¶27

WP(C).No.4554 OF 2021(T)

¶28

¶29