IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 8617 of 2008(A) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BENZY & COMPANY, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9L/ SOUBHAGYA APARMENTS, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-04, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, KUNHIMOHAMMED, S/O.CHEKU, AGED 52 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKKODE. 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKKODE. 3. K.P.ABOOBACKER, SALOHA MANZIL, CHOYIMADAM, PUNOOR, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC, R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 8617 OF 2008 - A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that they had applied for a building permit for construction of a 9 storied shopping complex at Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, the plan was prepared by an architect from abroad and that there are several other peculiarities attached to the design. It is stated that the plan was considered by the Corporation and they were issued a building permit. 2. Soon thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed Ext. R1(a) application under the Right to Information Act to the Corporation for copies of the plan. Petitioner objected to the disclosure of the plan and other details to the 3rd respondent mainly contending that the disclosure of the information sought for is exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information Act by virtue of Section 8D thereof. According to him, ignoring the objections, the details were about to be disclosed and it was at that stage the writ petition has been filed praying to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from disclosing W.P.(C) No. 8617 OF 2008 -2- the information sought for by the 3rd respondent. 3. The Corporation has filed its counter affidavit where they say that on receipt of Ext. R1(a) application, the Information Officer of the Corporation heard the parties and was about to pass orders and that it was at that stage this writ petition was filed. According to the Corporation, on account of the interim order passed by this Court further proceedings are kept in abeyance. 3. In my view, once a request is made by a person for information invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the Information Officer is bound to pass orders, as required under the Act such an order has not been passed in this case. 4. Therefore, taking note of the above, I feel, that the Information Officer should pass orders which he shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks from today. It is directed that once orders are passed as above, immediately thereafter copies thereof shall be made available to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. It is also directed that if the order is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order so that it will be open W.P.(C) No. 8617 OF 2008 -3- to the aggrieved party to pursue the matter before the statutory authorities. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-