Allowed

Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2023WP(C)/4671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a final order issuing notice to realize salary dues against the petitioner. It directed the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before passing further orders under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

What did the court decide?

The final order (Ext. P4) was quashed and a direction was issued to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within ten days before making any further orders.

Sivaprakash Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 2NDDAY OF MARCH 2023 / 11TH PHALGUNA,1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 4671 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

SIVAPRAKASH
AGED 45 YEARS
NIRUPAMA NIVAS, AKKONAM,
CHADAYAMANGALAM,KOLLAM , NOW WORKING AS SHO,
EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691505
BY ADV SYAM J SAM

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT. OF KERALA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001

¶8

2 SECRETARY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, TC-14/2071, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶9

3MURALIDHARANPILLAI
NILAVU, ARAMPUNNA, ILLAMPAL P.O, PUNALOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691322

¶10

SRI.T.R.RENJITH,G.P. SRI.M.AJAY,SC

¶11

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON02.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 4671 OF 2023

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner herein is the Inspector Station House Officer of the Punalur Police Station. He has approached this Court impugning Ext. P3 preliminary order, by which the petitioner was directed to show cause why action shall not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) of the Right To Information Act. He has also challenged Ext. P4 final order, by which directions were issued to the superior officers to realize the amount from the salary of the petitioner herein and for initiation of appropriate proceedings against him.

¶16

The contention of the petitioner is that before passing the final order, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. He refers to Ext. P5 reply received under the RTI Act to substantiate that he was kept in the dark with regard to what had transpired after the passing of the interim order as well.

¶17

Sri. M. Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, submitted that before passing of the preliminary order, only the SPIO, as well as the Appellate Authority, would be heard, and if it is found that there is a delay in furnishing the information sufficient to warrant to proceedings under Section 20 (1) & (2), only then the defaulting officer would be put on notice. The learned counsel fairly submits that the records do not reveal that the petitioner was put on notice prior to the passing of Ext. P4 final

¶18

WP(C) NO. 4671 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

order. It is submitted that, in that view of the matter, the respondents have no objection to hearing the matter afresh from the stage immediately after the passing of the preliminary order.

¶21

In the result,

¶22

(i) Ext. P4 will stand quashed.

¶23

(ii) Fresh notice shall be issued to the petitioner in the address

¶24

shown in the cause title of the writ petition within a period of ten days.

¶25

(iii) Thereafter, fresh order shall be passed as expeditiously as

¶26

possible with notice to the petitioner and the party respondent.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶29

avs

¶30

WP(C) NO. 4671 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4671/2023

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit1THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20/11/2018 IS PRODUCED
Exhibit2THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.4705/2019
DATED 14/03/2019 IS PRODUCED
Exhibit p3THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20/06/2019 IS PRODUCED
Exhibit4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2021 IS PRODUCED
Exhibit5THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE PUNALOOR POLICE STATION
DATED 15/04/2022 IS PRODUCED

Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. A.P.R.M. Central School Vs 1. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization

Saran.C.R Vs Rani Chandrasekharan

Aseem. J.S Vs Regional Transport Authority

Joseph George Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation - Epfo

Joseph.M.L Vs Maintenance Tribunal (Revenue Divisional Officer)

Force India Management Services & Securities, Vs the Labour Commissioner