IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16255 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BENZY & COMPANY, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9L/SOUBHAGYA APARTMENTS, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-4, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHOUKATHALI P., S/O. ABDULLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 3. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. K.P.ABOOBACKER, SALOHA MANZIL, UNNIKULAM, CHOYI MADAM, PUNOOR, KOZHIKODE-673 612. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU, SC-KOZHIKODE CORPORATION R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16255 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The 4th respondent sought for an information, as regards the building plan submitted by the petitioner and stated to have been approved by the 1st respondent Corporation. The information was declined by the Secretary of the Corporation in the first instance as per Ext.P3 order. The 4th respondent preferred a complaint before the State Information Commission, the 3rd respondent, without preferring an appeal against Ext.P3 order. By Ext.P4 order, the 4th respondent has been informed by the Public Information Officer and Town Planning Officer of the Corporation that the State Information Commission has directed the information sought for by the 4th respondent to be supplied to the 4th respondent. An order stated to have been passed by the State Commission was referred to. Ext.P4 has been challenged on several grounds. W.P.(C).No.16255 of 2009 :: 2 :: 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also standing counsel for the State Information Commission Mr.M.Ajay and learned counsel for the Corporation. 3. Mr.Ajay submits that there was no written order issued by the State Information Commission. It is true that a complaint was received by the State Information Commission and a hearing was conducted on 18.5.2009. He submits that the Commissioner will hear the petitioner and the 4th respondent afresh and take a decision, including on the question whether a complaint can be directly maintained before the State Information Commission in spite of the fact that the information sought for by the 4th respondent has been declined by the original authority. 4. In the circumstances, I am of the view that further proceedings against Ext.P4 shall be taken only after the State Information Commission takes a decision as recorded above and Ext.P4 will be enforced, W.P.(C).No.16255 of 2009 :: 3 :: subject to the decision taken by the State Information Commission. The Commission shall take a decision, after hearing the petitioner as also the 4th respondent. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge