IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 239 of 2010(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- U. MOOSANKUTTY, S/O. USSANAR, KOMATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAVUTYAPURAM AMSOM, THARUR.P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039. 2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/ SECRETARY, THARUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THARUR.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 547. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN FOR R1 SMT.JEENA JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.G.D.PANICKER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT – W.P.C.NO. 239/2010. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DEPUTATION APPLICATION. EXT.P2 APPEAL DT. 3-3-2009. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 24-3-2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 7-12-2009. EXT.P7 DETAILS FURNISHED ON 14-12-2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) COP OF LETTER DT. 19-12-2008. EXT.R2(b) LETTER DT. 1-4-2009. EXT.R2(c) REPORT DT. 4-8-2009. EXT.R2(d) ODER DT. 10-11-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 239 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed Ext. P1 application before the 2nd respondent under the Right to Information Act on 21-10-2008. But, the information requested for by the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the appellate authority first and then the 1st respondent. Before the 1st respondent under the cover of Ext. P7, the 2nd respondent furnished the information, which was far beyond the period prescribed by the Right to Information Act. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that despite being aware of the violation by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent has not taken any action against the 2nd respondent to impose penalty for delayed supply of information requested for, which was a duty cast upon the 1st respondent whenever such transgressions by information officers are noticed by the 1st respondent. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 1st respondent and the counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. I am not inclined to go into the controversy on merits in this writ petition. However, I am of opinion the petitioner is entitled to have his grievance considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall file a petition before the 1st respondent seeking action against the 2nd respondent for delayed supply of information requested for, within a period of three weeks along with a certified copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the W.P.C. No. 239/2010 -: 2 :- petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the petition filed by the petitioner. I make it abundantly clear that I have not considered the contentions of the parties on merits and it is entirely for the 1st respondent to consider every aspect of the matter in accordance with law. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/