IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13410 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.SUTHAKARAN, NATTUVETTY HOUSE, THANYAM PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (RETIRED FINANCE OFFICER OF KANNUR UNIVERSITY) BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695039, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT & JOINT REGISTRAR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR-670567. 3. BABU CHATHOTH, PRESIDENT, KANNUR UNIVERSITY STAFF ORGANISATION, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR - 670567. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN FOR R1 SC SRI.M.SASEENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13410 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.09 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.4.09 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13410/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who was a Finance Officer of Kannur University, is aggrieved by the communication issued by the State Information Commission assigning to show cause why action should not have taken against him under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. Normally, the petitioner should have appeared before the Commissioner and furnished explanation. But apparently, Ext.P1 has been challenged on the premise that the Chief Information Commissioner has already come to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was the former Finance Officer of registration in charge, is guilty of culpable delay in furnishing an information, notwithstanding several requests made in this regard by the Public Information Officer of the University. 2. Mr.M.Ajay, learned counsel for the State Information Commission, affirms that what is mentioned in Ext.P2 is only tentative and shall not be treated as final. Petitioner W.P.(C).13410/09 2 may therefore, submit his written explanation to Ext.P1. Such explanation shall be considered and final orders shall be passed. If the petitioner requires a personal hearing, it shall be afforded. Personal appearance need not be insisted upon unless the petitioner requires the same. Orders shall be passed treating Ext.P1 as a show cause, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs