IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 27790 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.PADMA BALAJI ALLOYS (P) LTD., 308/1, NIDA, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD 678 621 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.RAVICHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR (MIS) & STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, K.S.E.B, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS), VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, K.S.E.B, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. P.P. THAJUDHEEN, S.C., K.S.E.B. AND SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.27790 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Padmabalaji Alloys Pvt. Ltd. There was an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad in the petitioner’s premises on 18.1.2005. It seems that a penal bill was issued by the Board and dispute arising therefrom stated to be pending before this Court. A Technical Committee headed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (APTS) is stated to have been constituted by the Board to study the report drawn up after the inspection of the petitioner’s premises. According to the petitioner, the Expert Committee found that no theft has been committed. He therefore sought for a copy of the said report as per Exhibit P1. First respondent the Director and State Public Information Officer of the KSEB declined to disclose the same as per Exhibit P2 on the ground that it cannot be disclosed under Section 8(h) of the Right to Information Act,2005 on the W.P ( C) No.27790 of 2008 2 premise that the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the same before the Appellate Authority of the KSEB and that view was affirmed as per Exhibit P3. The matter was taken up in appeal before the State Information Commission and by Exhibit P4 order the State Information Commission held that even in the original application seeking information, the petitioner had clearly stated that he was seeking the information in his capacity as the Managing Director (SIC) of the firm. The Commissioner had already held that the Managing Director/Director/ Proprietor of the company cannot be deemed as a citizen. The same view was applied in the present case also and hence the appeal was rejected. Exhibit P4 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy and Sri.M.Ajay, learned standing counsel appearing for the Information Commission. W.P ( C) No.27790 of 2008 3 3. In my view, the stand taken in Exhibit P4 that Managing Director/Director of a company cannot be an applicant under the Right to Information Act because he cannot be deemed to be an applicant under Section 3 of the Act is not correct. But I agree with the submission made by Sri.M.Ajay that Exhibit P1 application in the present case is preferred by the company and not by the Managing Director in person. In other words, it is not a case where the information is sought for by a citizen who also has a designation of a Managing Director/Director of a Company. I further agree with the submission made by Mr. Ajay that there has to be an assertion by an applicant that he is a citizen and is therefore entitled to maintain the requisite application under the Right to Information Act. That is also lacking in Exhibit P1 application. In my view, the matter is to be reconsidered by the State Information Commission. Accordingly Exhibit P4 is set aside and the State Chief Information Commissioner, the addl. 4th respondent shall reconsider the petitioner’s appeal. To enable him to do so, petitioner shall file a fresh W.P ( C) No.27790 of 2008 4 affidavit before the State Information Commission affirming that he is a citizen of India and that Exhibit-P1 application though styled as one preferred by the company may be treated as an application filed by an individual. Thereupon, the State Chief Information Commissioner shall consider the petitioner’s appeal and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law, after hearing him within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.27790 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No.27790 of 2008 6