IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10817 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JANILKUMAR TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISION KERALA PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.RADHAKRISHNAN PAVOOR HOUSE,.THAROPINE POST VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VATAKARA (PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER) BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, R1 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10817 OF 2008 - K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P8. 2. Ext. P8 is an order passed by the 1st respondent finding that the petitioner is guilty of non-receipt of request made by the 2nd respondent under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act and for refusal to furnish information, petitioner has been penalised by imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner was the Assistant Public Information Officer, and Ext.P1 is a request made by the 2nd respondent for disclosure of certain information mentioned therein. Even according to the petitioner, on receipt of the application, he returned the same with an endorsement that the application should be submitted with the requisite fee that is payable. It would appear that thereupon the 2nd respondent made Ext. P2 complaint to the 1st respondent. The complaint was entertained and Ext. P3 notice was issued. Thereafter enquiry was conducted and the petitioner and the Tahsildar, who is the Information Officer, gave their statements W.P.(C) No. 10817 OF 2008 - 2 - and the parties were also heard pursuant to Ext. P5 notice on 30.3.2007. It is thereafter that Ext. P8 order has been issued by the 1st respondent imposing penalty on the petitioner as stated above. 3. On facts, it has been found by the 1st respondent that Ext. P1 application was returned by the petitioner with a sarcastic comment which is also extracted in the order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defence of the petitioner was not considered and that after hearing on 30.3.2007 there was inordinate delay in passing Ext. P8 order. Yet another contention that is raised is that in the process of passing the order Ext. P7 report submitted by the Tahsildar, was not considered by the 1st respondent. 4. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent also. 5. Admittedly, the application made by the 2nd respondent was returned by the petitioner with the endorsement that the same should be resubmitted with requisite fee. It is true that after the complaint was made to the 1st respondent, the Tahsildar concerned, who is the Information Officer has furnished the information sought for by the 2nd respondent, but, however the fact remains that the W.P.(C) No. 10817 OF 2008 - 3 - petitioner declined to entertain Ext. P1 on the ground that the fee remitted was in adequate. Section 7(3) of the Act provides the manner in which additional fee is to be realised in case where the fee accompanying the request is inadequate. The Information Officer is required to provide details of the further fee for providing information as determined by him. In this case, with an endorsement that the application should be submitted with the requisite fee the application was returned and hence, there has been a failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the provisions of Section 7(3). 6. Evidently, there was a refusal to give information and that necessarily attracts the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act. Petitioner has a case that the complainant was not examined. It may be true that the complainant was not examined. Though the Commission is vested with the power to summon witnesses summoning a witness, be it the complainant himself, arises only when an application is made by any one of the parties to that effect. In this case it is not the petitioner's contention that he has sought for the summoning of the complainant for examination. He having not done so, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the contention W.P.(C) No. 10817 OF 2008 - 4 - as well. 7. It is contended that the information was furnished at a later point of time. It may be true that under compelling situations, the Information Officer would have furnished the information. However, that does not exonerate the petitioner, being the Asst. Public Information Officer, from the lapses that has been found against. 8. As rightly pointed out by the 1st respondent in Ext. P8, the Act is a people friendly Act and an informed citizenry is an asset to a democratic set up. This purpose has to be borne in mind when requests are entertained by the officials who are designated under the Act. 9. True, there has been delay on the part of the 1st respondent rendering the order. That has not been caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-