IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37827 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- UNNI,S/O.SANKARAN,NEEREPPURAM HOUSE, P.O.CHALIYAM,KOZHIKODE-673301. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KADALUNDI VILLAGE, KADALUNDI,KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37827 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that after making Ext.P1 application to the 2nd respondent, he made an application to the 2nd respondent under the Right to Information Act for disclosure of the action taken on the complaint. It is stated that, the information sought for was not furnished and the matter was taken up with the State Information Commission, which resulted in Ext.P3 order. By Ext.P3 order, the Commission ordered that the information sought for should be furnished and it was also held that the 2nd respondent is liable to be proceeded against under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. Petitioner complains that, despite all the above, he was not given the information sought for. It is stated that, finally he made Ext.P6 complaint to the 1st respondent requesting for his intervention for obtaining the information. Even at that stage, his request was not considered, and therefore, he made Ext.P8 complaint to the Information Commissioner. Even thereafter, his grievance has not been redressed. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. WPC No.37827/10 :2 : 2. If as stated by the petitioner, despite all his endeavours and the order passed by the Information Commission, he has not been furnished information as sought for, this certainly is a case where the 1st respondent should interfere and take action on Ext.P6. 3. Therefore, I direct that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent, who thereupon shall verify the complaint of the petitioner, and if what is alleged by the petitioner is found to be true, necessary action for redressal of his grievance shall be taken. This shall be done by the 1st respondent with notice to the petitioner at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp