IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10163 of 2009(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.A.NARAYANAN, (RTD) TECHNICIAN (S.RAILWAY), GIRIJA VILLA, WEST PONNIAM P.O., NEAR COIMBATORE SAW MILL, THALASSERY - 670 101. BY MS.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. 4. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, OLD JNU CAMPUS, BOLCK IV, 5TH FLOOR, NEW DELHI - 110067. 5. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (P) & THE SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. 6. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (RIA) & ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. BY MR. N.B. SUNIL NATH, SC, RAILWAY. MR. AJITH KRISHNAN, CGS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10163 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application invoking the Right to Information Act, seeking disclosure of information about the action that was taken by the respondents on Ext.P1 notice. Reply was given by the 5th respondent as per Ext.P3. The petitioner was not satisfied with the reply and therefore filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 6th respondent. By Ext.P5, the 5th respondent, who had passed Ext.P3 order, himself has disposed of Ext.P4 appeal. 4. Thus a reading of Exts.P3 & P5 shows that both the orders are passed by Shri.N.Govindan, PIO(P) and Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/PGT. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the original authority has dealt with the appeal also. This is clearly erroneous and for that reason I quash Ext.P5. 5. The 6th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 and WP(C) No.10163/2009 -2- pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg