Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1943 PETITIONER: MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.USSANAR, KOMATH PARAMBU, VAVULLIPAPURAM, TARUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. P.R.VENKATESH G.KEERTHIVAS RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), PALAKKAD-678 541. 3 VILLAGE OFFICER (PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER), KUTHANNUR-I VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 721. 4 SATHISH.J., STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KUTHANNUR, PALAKKAD, PRESENTLY WORKING AS VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPULLY VILLAGE II, PALAKKAD-678 622. BY ADVS. SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN M.AJAY
OTHER PRESENT: SRI. M. AJAY SC ,SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY.SR.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that Ext.P9 order of the 1 st respondent - State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’ for short), exonerating the 4th respondent from all consequences under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is illegal and unlawful.
2. The petitioner contends that even though it has
been established without doubt that the 4 th respondent had deliberately delayed furnishing the information sought for by him within the mandatory period fixed in the Act, the 1st respondent has now accepted his explanation, but without verifying its veracity. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set aside and the 1 st respondent - State Information Commission be directed to reconsider the matter, thus leading to necessary action against the 4 th respondent.
3. The afore arguments of Sri.Keerthivas G. Giri -
learned counsel for the petitioner, were met by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent - Sri.M.Ajay, arguing that, as is rightly stated by the petitioner, Ext.P5
order was initially issued proposing further action against
the 4th respondent; but that it was only a preliminary order, made without hearing the 4 th respondent, but only his successor-in-office. Sri.M.Ajay then submitted that the successor-in-office of the 4th respondent stated that the delay was occasioned on account of heavy load of work and that the Commission then found it necessary to take further action against the 4 th respondent. He explains that the petitioner, thereupon, approached this Court and obtained Ext.P8 judgment, pursuant to which, the parties were heard and Ext.P9 order was issued. He then pointed out that, in Ext.P9, the explanation of the 4 th respondent has been extracted, wherein, he stated that it is on account of the fact that the Revenue records had been submerged in the 2018 floods and since it was to be consequently reconstructed - at the time when the application of the petitioner was received - he was unable to furnish the information to him within the statutory period. Sri. M.Ajay vehemently predicated that the State Information Commission has done nothing in favour of the 4th respondent, but was only acting as a quasi-Judicial Functionary, taking note of the explanation furnished by the said respondent, thus exonerating him under the provisions of the RTI Act, finding it to be satisfactory.
4. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions, as also Ext.P9, very carefully.
5. As rightly stated by Sri.M.Ajay, the explanation of the 4th respondent has been detailed in Ext.P9. The said
respondent has averred that the Revenue Records maintained in his office were damaged on account of the floods of the year 2018 and that he had taken up the matter with the Village Officer for reconstructing a new Basic Tax Register. He explicates that it is during the time when the process of thus creating the new Basic Tax
Register, that the application of the petitioner was preferred and consequently, that there was a delay in acceding to it.
6. Pertinently, the petitioner does not have a case that the factual assertions of the 4th respondent, as
averred in his explanation are incorrect. His only contention is that said respondent cannot be heard to say that the delay in furnishing the information was on account of the burden of work. Of course, he also argues that the explanation, that the records were not available, can only be accepted “with a pinch of salt” because the
order of the Tahsildar or Ext.P5 does not mention anything
regarding the said fact.
7. That being so, the answer of Sri. M. Ajay to the
fact that Ext.P5 does not reflect the explanation of the 4 th respondent is that the same was prepared as a preliminary order, without hearing the 4 th respondent, but only his successor-in-office; and therefore, that until the said respondent had been heard and his explanation taken into account, final action against him could not have been completed.
8. I find substantial force in the contentions of
Sri.M.Ajay because, I cannot see from Ext.P5 - even though it is argued to the contrary by Sri. Keerthivas G.Giri - that 4th respondent had been heard before it had been settled. certainly find favour with Sri.M. Ajay when he says that it is the successor of the 4 th respondent in office who had furnished the causes as recorded in Ext.P5, but that when the final proceedings were completed, the said respondent was heard and his explanation taken into account.
9. Going by the reasons stated by the 4th
respondent, one cannot find fault with the stand taken by the Commission because, as rightly argued by Sri.M. Ajay, it is only in the case of a deliberate act or careless omission that an officer can be punished under the RTI Act, for any delay occasioned in furnishing of the information. Going by the explanation offered by the 4 th respondent, which has not been alleged, much less
established, by the petitioner to be untrue, the Commission cannot be found to be in error in concluding that it does not warrant any further action against him, particularly because the Basic Tax Register itself had been rendered unreadable because it was drowned during floods and it was reconstructed with the help of the Village Officer.
In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition without, in any manner, interfering with Ext.P9. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ANB JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15383/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01.07.2019 TOGETHER WITH THE RECEIPT AND THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 14.10.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.12.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.06.2020 INVITING THE PETITIONER FOR AUDIO HEARING. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.10.2020 WITH COURIER RECEIPT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2020. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2021 IN WPC NO.4425/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION DATED 07.04.2021. Exhibit P10 THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.