IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37685 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SANTHOSH LAL, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, VAYAKANCHI ROAD, ANAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 551. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37685 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P12 and P18. According to the petitioner, he is one of the applicants for the post of LPSA (Malayalam Medium) in Thiruvananthapuram District. The controversy relates to the exact number of vacancies that is available to be filled up from the ranked list now available with the PSC. It is the case of the petitioner that there are more than 100 vacancies against which candidates are to be advised from the list. In order to prove this contention of the petitioner, petitioner sought disclosure of certain information by making Ext.P17 application invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. That application of the petitioner is seen rejected by Ext.P18 order of the Public Information Officer in the office of the 2nd respondent on the ground that a writ petition concerning the same issue is pending consideration of this Court. Another applicant similarly situated appears to have complained to the Information Commission resulting in Ext.P20 communication where also similar view has been taken. It is in these WPC No.37685/10 :2 : circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. If an applicant is otherwise entitled to disclosure of an information, the fact that there is a litigation concerning the subject matter of the application is pending before the High Court, cannot be a reason to turn down the request. That precisely is what has been done in Ext.P18. Therefore, the view taken in Ext.P18 cannot be upheld. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 2nd respondent will, within 4 weeks thereafter, ensure that the information sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P17 application made by him shall be furnished. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp