IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27159 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RASHEEDA BEEGAM K, W/O.SULAIMAN.P, QUARTERS NO.R-1, 66 KV SUB STATION, K.S.E.B, KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MANJERI-676 123. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SUB STATION SUB DIVISION, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND THE APPELLATE OFFICER (AO), TRANSMISSION DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 3. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION OFFICE, PUNNAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 27159 of 2009-L ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.P.S.Sreedharan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P19 and P21 orders passed by the State Information Commission on Ext.P14 complaint filed by her. The petitioner is the wife of Sri.P.Sulaiman, who is an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. There was a dispute between Sri.P.Sulaiman and Sri.P.K.Shaji in the matter of occupation of the quarters allotted to Sri.P.Sulaiman. The petitioner had sent Ext.P9 application dated 28.5.2008 to the first respondent who is also the State Public Information Officer of the Kerala State Electricity Board at Malappuram seeking information as to whether Sri.P.K.Shaji had applied for transfer from the sub station at Kuruvambrum to any other place otherwise than at the time of general transfer. The petitioner also requested for attested copies of the application, if such application has been made and also the report submitted by the Sub Station Engineer to his superior officer. W.P(C) No. 27159 of 2009-L 2 3. Within one month thereafter the first respondent sent Ext.P10 letter stating that the information sought can be given only after ascertaining the views of Sri.P.K.Shaji, Overseer. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner moved the Executive Engineer by filing Ext.P12 appeal. On receipt of the appeal the Executive Engineer sent Ext.P13 letter informing the petitioner that the first respondent has been directed to issue the documents sought. The first respondent thereupon informed the petitioner that copies of the documents will be furnished on payment of the fee of Rs.4/-. On the ground that as 30 days have expired, she is not bound to meet the expenses for copies of documents, the petitioner filed Ext.P14 complaint before the State Information Commission. On that complaint a report was called for from the first respondent. He reported to the State Information Commission that copies were not furnished as directed in Ext.P13 letter since the petitioner did not pay the fee and that on receipt of notice from the State Information Commission, copies of the documents were furnished to the petitioner. On Ext.P14 complaint the Commission passed Ext.P19 order holding that failure to furnish the information sought by the petitioner was based on a misconception of law and that the denial of information is not malafide. The petitioner thereupon moved the Commission seeking a review of Ext.P19. The said request was rejected by Ext.P21 order. Hence this writ W.P(C) No. 27159 of 2009-L 3 petition challenging Exts.P19 and 21 orders. 4. The petitioner contends that the first respondent ought to have furnished the information sought in Ext.P9 application within 30 days as provided in the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that having not been done, in the light of the findings in Ext.P8 order, when the first respondent was penalised on an earlier occasion, the State Information Commission erred in holding that her request in Ext.P9 was declined on a wrong understanding of the law and that the denial of information sought was not malafide. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had on earlier occasion applied for information regarding allotment of quarters to Sri.P.K.Shaji, Overseer. When that information was not furnished she filed a complaint before the State Information Commission. On that complaint the State Information Commission passed Ext.P8 order holding that the State Public Information Officer declined the information without reasonable cause. A penalty of Rs.3,750/- was also imposed on him. Apart from relying on Ext.P8, the petitioner has not produced any material in support of her contention that the State Public Information Officer denied the information sought by her in Ext.P9 out of malice or without reasonable cause. The petitioner alleges that the State Public Information Officer nurses a grudge against her husband and has purposefully delayed furnishing the information. The reason why the W.P(C) No. 27159 of 2009-L 4 State Public Information Officer entertains a grudge against the petitioner's husband who is working as Lineman Gr.I at Manjeri, is not set out in the writ petition or in the complaint filed before the Commission. 5. When the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application, the State Public Information Officer sent Ext.P10 letter informing her that the information sought can be furnished only after ascertaining the views of Sri.P.K.Shaji. Sri.P.K.Shaji denied his consent and the documents were not furnished. The petitioner thereupon filed a first appeal. As directed by the first appellate authority the first respondent informed the petitioner that the copies of documents will be furnished on payment of Rs.4/- as fee. The said offer was not acceptable to the petitioner. Instead of paying Rs.4/- she filed a complaint before the State Information Commission. Evidently, she would have spend much more than the said amount for sending the complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the State Information Commission called for a report from the State Public Information Officer. On receipt of the notice from the State Information Commission, the State Public Information Officer furnished copies of documents and also submitted a report to the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission thereafter considered the matter and held that as the State Public Information Officer acted on misconception of law, no punishment is warranted. W.P(C) No. 27159 of 2009-L 5 6. In my considered opinion, there is no merit in the challenge to Exts.P19 and P20. If on the facts of the case that the Commission took the view that imposition of penalty is not warranted, I find no reason why this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should interfere with the said finding. The conduct of the petitioner discloses that she is more concerned about the penalising the State Public Information Officer than in getting the information sought. The information sought by the petitioner was whether Sri.P.K.Shaji has applied for transfer to another station otherwise than at the time of general transfer and whether the Sub Station Engineer had submitted any report to the higher authorities. When the information sought was not given in time the petitioner filed a first appeal and in the first appeal directions were issued to furnish copies. The first respondent thereupon informed the petitioner that on payment of Rs.4/-, the information can be furnished. It was not acceptable to the petitioner. As noticed earlier, she was more interested in prosecuting the State Public Information Officer rather than receiving the copies after paying the meager amount of Rs.4/-. It is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that the State Public Information Officer does not deserve to be punished. The Right to Information Act is not meant to be used as a weapon of oppression against the superior officers of the petitioner's husband. Thought the Act W.P(C) No. 27159 of 2009-L 6 does not place any restriction on the petitioner's right to get any information, I find no reason why the petitioner's husband could not have sought the information. In my opinion, the petitioner had no right to interfere in the disputes between her husband and another employee of the Board. In such circumstances, I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE ab