IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24858 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.KARUNANIDHI, S.K.BHAVAN,VENKULAM,EDAVA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 311. BY ADV. MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, PUNNEN ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY MR. M.AJAY, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24858/2009 - B ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th September, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner had on 26.7.2008 submitted the original of Ext.P1 application to the third respondent seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). According to the petitioner, since the information sought for was in relation to the service particulars of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Revenue, the third respondent herein, the said application was destroyed. The petitioner thereupon sent another application through courier. The third respondent refused to accept the said application. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the first appellate authority, namely, the second respondent. According to the petitioner, though the appeal was heard on 28.11.2008, orders were not passed thereon. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Ext.P5 second appeal before the State Information W.P.(C) No.24858/2009 2 Commission. On receipt of Ext.P5, the State Information Commission registered it as a complaint and sought the remarks of the second respondent. The second respondent accordingly furnished Ext.P6 reply. A copy thereof was forwarded by the State Information Commission to the petitioner along with the original of Ext.P8 letter dated 3.2.2009. The petitioner was also called upon to furnish his remarks in the matter. According to the petitioner, he had on receipt of Ext.P8 letter and a copy of Ext.P6 reply, submitted Ext.P9 reply to the first respondent. The first respondent, however, rejected Ext.P5 complaint on the short ground that the petitioner did not reply to Ext.P8 letter. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P11 and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 appeal and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. 3. Sri.M.Ajay, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits, on instructions, that the original of Ext.P9 was not received in the office of the State Commission though the petitioner claims that it was sent through courier. He however submits that the State Information Commission will reconsider Ext.P5 appeal which has been registered as a complaint (Complaint Petition No.1355(2)/2008/SIC) having regard to the statements in W.P.(C) No.24858/2009 3 Ext.P9 and take a decision thereon after affording the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the light of the said submission, the petitioner cannot, in my opinion, have any surviving grievance. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Information Commission to re-consider Ext.P5 petition (Complaint Petition No.1355(2)/2008/SIC) and pass revised orders thereon after affording the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It will be open to the petitioner to file a written submission incorporating all his contentions. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary of the State Information Commission. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa