IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24722 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.SUBRAMANIYAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. KUNJAPPU, KIZHAKUMPURATH HOUSE THOTTAPURA, P.O.AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD 678 008 BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 039 2. THE PRINCIPAL/ STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER I.T.I. MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -14 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. ADV. SRI. M. AJAY, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 24722 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant for certain information from the 2nd respondent under the Right to Information Act. There was admittedly delay in furnishing the information. The petitioner moved the 1st respondent for imposing penalty on the 2nd respondent for delay in furnishing the information. At that time, it was represented before the State Information Commission on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent was designated only as an Assistant Public Information Officer and not as a State Public Information Officer. Therefore, by Ext. P3 order, the Commission, after finding that there was delay in furnishing the information, dropped further proceedings on the ground that there is no express provision in the Act to proceed against an Assistant Public Information Officer. The petitioner now submits that it is clear from Ext. P4 that the 2nd respondent was actually the State Public Information Officer and not as an Assistant Public Information Officer. He therefore challenges Ext. P3 order. 2. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent points out that Ext. P3 order was passed based on the information available to the Commission at the relevant time. The petitioner did not produce Ext. P4 or any other documents to contradict the statement submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent to the effect that he was only an Assistant Public Information Officer. The standing counsel would therefore point out that the petitioner's remedy lies in filing a complaint under Section 18(1) (e) and (f) of the Act for initiating proceedings for furnishing false information to the Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard while passing Ext. P3 order. W.P.C. No. 24722/08. -: 2 :- 3. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that the most appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file a complaint under Section 18(1)(e) and (f), in which the petitioner can not only prosecute the question of imposition of penalty but also seek appropriate action against the 2nd respondent for furnishing false information, if the information furnished by the 2nd respondent is found to be false. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 18(1)(e) & (f) of the Act, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.