A.C.David vs State Information Commission

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 23, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1442499

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1442499
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Murali Purushothaman
Decided On: Aug 23, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/1191/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A.C.David

Respondent

State Information Commission

Excerpt

.....to the spio under section20 (1). the petitioner contends that, ext.p1 orderexonerating the spio has been passed without hearing the petitioner and without application of mind.2. heard the petitioner who appeared in person, sri.m.ajay, the learned standing counsel for the state information commission and sri.santheep ankarath, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.3. in ext.p1, the commission has stated that,though the explanation of the spio is not fully satisfactory, taking into consideration the facts in its entirety, the spio can be exonerated from penalty under section 20 of the act. ext.p1 is a cryptic and non speaking order. it is set aside. there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in the proceedings initiated pursuant to ext.p2, after hearing the petitioner and the spio of the 2 nd respondent at the relevant time, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. while passing orders in the proceedings initiated under section 20, the state information commission shall keep in mind the prerequisites for imposing penalty under section 20(1) as laid down by this court in joseph p.j v. kerala stateinformation commission and another [2020 khc 4128] and praveen kumar p.n v. state information commissioner, tvm and another [2021 (5) khc 151]. the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. sd/- murali purushothaman judge spr appendixpetitioner's exhibits:- exhibit p1 original order of the state information commission, thiruvananthapuram dated exhibit p2 original order of the state information commission, thiruvananthapuram dated exhibit p3 letter to the state information commission, thiruvananthapuram (regd) dated 01/02/2021. respondents exhibits: nil.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 1191 OF 2022 PETITIONER: A.C. DAVID AGED 52 YEARS S/O. LATE A.V.CHACKO, ARIMBOOR HOUSE, ATS ROAD CHALISSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 536. SRI.A.C.DAVID (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 SECRETARY CHALISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHALISSERI P. O., PALAKKAD - 679 536. R1 - SRI. M. AJAY - SC R2 - SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the State Information Commission exonerating the State Public Information Officer from penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act (for short 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the State Information Commission by Ext.P2 order has found that there is violation of the provisions of the Act by the SPIO and issued notice to the SPIO under Section

20 (1). The petitioner contends that, Ext.P1 order

exonerating the SPIO has been passed without hearing the petitioner and without application of mind.

2. Heard the petitioner who appeared in person, Sri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission and Sri.Santheep Ankarath, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. In Ext.P1, the Commission has stated that,

though the explanation of the SPIO is not fully satisfactory, taking into consideration the facts in its entirety, the SPIO can be exonerated from penalty under Section 20 of the Act. Ext.P1 is a cryptic and non speaking order. It is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P2, after hearing the petitioner and the SPIO of the 2 nd respondent at the relevant time, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While passing orders in the proceedings initiated under Section 20, the State Information Commission shall keep in mind the prerequisites for imposing penalty under Section 20(1) as laid down by this Court in Joseph P.J v. Kerala State

Information Commission and Another [2020 KHC 4128] and Praveen Kumar P.N v. State Information Commissioner, TVM and Another [2021 (5) KHC 151]. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED EXHIBIT P2 ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED EXHIBIT P3 LETTER TO THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REGD) DATED 01/02/2021. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties A.C.David vs State Information Commission Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Murali Purushothaman