IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 26670 of 2006(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ADVOCATE D.B. BINU, COCHIN CHAMBER OF LAWYERS, II FLOOR, FATHIMA PLAZA, PROVIDENCE ROAD, KOCHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2873 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 26670 of 2006(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF ORDER NO. 24672/PS/06/HOME DATED 2.5.06 OF THE ADDL. SECRETARY, HOME. EXT.P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO. 28380/PS/06/HOME DATED 6.6.06 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME. EXT.P3 : COPY OF ORDER NO. 1867/SIC.GEN/2006 DATED 28.9.06 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO. 53182/SSA2/06/HOME DATED 12.9.06 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF ORDER NO. 1295/SIC-GEN/06 DT. 21.6.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)Nos. 26670 of 2006 & 2873 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T W.P. (C) No.26670/2006 is filed by the State of Kerala challenging Ext.P3 order of the State Information Commission passed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, directing the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department of the Government of Kerala) who is the appellate authority under the Right to Information Act to supply to the 2nd respondent in that writ petition a copy of the Marad Judicial Enquiry Commission report. W.P. (C) No.2873/2007 is filed by the Public Information Officer who did not supply the copy of the said report challenging the order of the Commission imposing on her penalty for failure to supply the copy of the report as directed by the Commission. It is an admitted fact now that pending the writ petitions the information was supplied to the applicant. As W.P.(C)Nos. 26670 of 2006 & 2873 of 2007 -2- such, W.P.(C) No.26670/2006 is of only academic interest and must have become infructuous but for the pendency of the other writ petition in the sense that if W.P. (C) No.26670/06 is allowed then the other writ petition also has to be allowed. I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions in W.P. (C) No.26670/2006 in view of the order I propose to pass in these writ petitions, in view of the fact that the information has been subsequently supplied to the 2nd respondent. The questions of law raised therein are left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. As far as the other writ petition is concerned, the counsel for the Commission as well as the counsel for the applicant would submit that the conduct of the petitioner is not befitting of a Public Information Officer insofar as even after the Commission passed the order directing supply of the information the petitioner did not supply the information. The counsel for the Commission would also point out that the petitioner misrepresented before the Commission insofar as she submitted that the information was supplied W.P.(C)Nos. 26670 of 2006 & 2873 of 2007 -3- on 07.10.2006 whereas it was actually supplied only on 07.12.2006. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that, that was a mere clerical error and the same was subsequently corrected. Although I do not quite approve of the conduct of the petitioner, in the particular circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner should not be visited with the penalty imposed on her. This is a case where the Government themselves were fighting tooth and nail in refusing to supply the information. Although the stand taken by the Government should not have governed the action of the petitioner, who is required to act independently under the Right to Information Act as per direction of the Commission, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that it is not a fit case to impose penalty on the petitioner, and therefore I quash Ext.P15 order in W.P. (C) No.2873/2007. But I make it clear that, I have not considered the question of law on its merits and the same is left open to be agitated in a more appropriate case. W.P.(C)Nos. 26670 of 2006 & 2873 of 2007 -4- Accordingly W.P. (C) No.26670/2006 is closed and W.P. (C) No.2873/2007 is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/