IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31106 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PRAVEEN KUMAR. M.G., MAYYANKANDIYIL, CHOOLUR, KOZHIKODE-673 601. 2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, PUNNANROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.31106 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 1st December, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order. As per Ext.P9, the second respondent required the petitioner society to participate in the video conference with all documents for the purpose of taking evidence. This Court passed an interim order on 18.10.2010. Based on the same, the Secretary and President of the petitioner society appeared before the second respondent and they have produced the relevant documents before the second respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the second respondent. 3. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent submitted that the President and Secretary of the petitioner society personally appeared before the second respondent and produced some documents. However, it is submitted that on that day the second respondent required them to produce some more documents. In fact, according to the learned standing counsel, for production of such documents they sought further time. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thereafter the documents required to WP(C).No.31106/2010 2 be produced were forwarded to the second respondent through registered post. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is closed recording the above statements and submissions. Necessarily, in the light of the hearing which was held on 9.11.2010 and also based on the documents produced the second respondent has to pass appropriate orders on the issue as to whether the petitioner society falls under the definition of `public authority' under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS