IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 24827 of 2007(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SIVAJADAS, SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SORRIASEN. M, CHENATTU PARAMBA, ANAPPARA, KUNNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M. AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN. R2 BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C., SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24827 of 2007(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/06/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2006 SEEKING CLARIFICATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTE FILE IN RELATION TO THIS CASE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/07/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION DATED 20/10/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/06/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11/07/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01/08/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04/05/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 24827 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission is the petitioner in this writ petition. He is aggrieved by the order of the State Information Commission, whereby the State Information Commission imposed on the petitioner a fine of Rs. 2500/- for 10 days' delay in giving a reply to the 2nd respondent to an application for an information sought for by the 2nd respondent under the Right to Information Act. According to the petitioner, there was no culpable delay. He submits that since there was a confusion as to whether the information sought for can be given to the 2nd respondent at all. Ultimately, it was decided that the information being a third party information could not have been issued to the 2nd respondent, which was confirmed by the State Information Commission also. Therefore, the State Information Commission ought to have held that the petitioner was not liable to be penalized for the same, is the contention raised. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by any party. But counsel for both 1st and 2nd respondents would vehemently argue in support of the order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly, the 1st respondent upheld the contention of the Public Service Commission that the information is not one which can be supplied to the 2nd respondent. In that context, I find merit in the averment of the petitioner that there was some confusion regarding the maintainability of the application itself. In the above W.P(C) No. 24827 of 2007 -: 2 :- circumstances, I am of opinion that the State Information Commission should have, instead of dealing with it technically, taken a view that there was no deliberate delay in disposing of the application of the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances, Ext. P9 order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/