Allowed

Fr. Joby K Antony, v. Union of India

Kerala HC24 Nov 2022WP(C)/3492/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court, finding that an impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner, set it aside. The court directed the Principal Secretary of IT, Kerala, to take a fresh decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P8; direct the 4th respondent to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a fresh decision within one month.

Fr. Joby K Antony, Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.3492 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FR. JOBY K. ANTONY, AGED 45 YEARS, VIA NARNI 29, 00181, ITALY, ALSO AT MARYMATHA PROVINCIAL HOUSE, ANGAMALY, KERALA, INDIA-683 573 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, VIJAY V. PAUL.

¶8

BY ADVS. KARTHIKA MARIA SHRI.GOKUL ASOK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS NIKETAN, 6, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶12

2 ALPHABET INC., 1600, AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA, 94043, USA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO.

¶13

3 GOOGLE INDIA (PVT.) LTD., NO.3, RMZ INFINITY - TOWER E, OLD MADRAS ROAD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, BANGALORE-560 016.

¶14

4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

-2-

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.3492 OF 2021

¶17

5 CERT-IND, ELECTRONICS NIKETAN, 6, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶18

SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI. S. MANU, DSGI

¶19

SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

-3-

¶22

W.P.(C) NO.3492 OF 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2022

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions assailing the reasoning in the impugned order. The argument is stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader, pointing out that the findings are in accordance with the provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011.

¶26

Having heard the counsel and having gone through the documents, I am impressed by the argument that the order under challenge was issued without hearing the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the order is liable to be set aside on that short ground. The other contentions urged by the learned Counsel on both sides can be considered by the competent authority.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, while taking a decision on the complaint, the adjudicating officer should advert to Rule 3 of the Information Technology

¶28

-4-

¶29

W.P.(C) NO.3492 OF 2021

¶30

(Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 and Ext.P10 notification.

¶31

Learned Government Pleader points out that such procedure need be adopted only if the adjudicating officer is conferred with the power to decide the issue canvassed in the petition.

¶32

For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P8 is set aside and the 4^th respondent is directed to take a fresh decision on petitioner's complaint, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The 4^th respondent is at liberty to decide all issues involved, including the question regarding its own jurisdiction. The decision, as directed above, shall be taken within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶34

bpr

¶35

-5-

¶36

W.P.(C) NO.3492 OF 2021

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3492/2021

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WEB PAGE MAINTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND AVAILABLE AT HTTPS://SUPPORT.GOOGLE.COM/WEBMASTERS/ANS WER/70897. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.S.R. 240 (E) (GAZETTE NOTIFICATION) DATED 25TH MARCH 2003. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19TH NOVEMBER 2019 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY SCREENSHOTS OF THE WEBPAGE CONTAINING DEFAMATORY MATERIAL AND SEARCH RESULTS.

¶40

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 26TH NOVEMBER 2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY UNDER THE IT ACT,2000.

¶42

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) 2386 OF 2020 DATED 13.2.2020.

¶43

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.

¶45

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF G.S.R 529 (E) (GAZETTE NOTIFICATION) DATED 7.7.2003.

¶46

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY SCREENSHOT OF THE REMOVAL REQUEST FORM WEBPAGE.

Fr. Joby K Antony, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fr. Joby K Antony, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aswin Associates Vs Union of India

Jose Antony Vs Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath

Ajims Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Mohandasan K. Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Paulose, Vs State of Kerala

Mohandasan K Vs the Union of India