High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-06-16Writ petition disposed by directing verificatio...

B. Vasanthi v. State Information Commission, Vengannoor Grama Panchayath, State of Kerala and S. Ashok Kumar

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 16503 of 2013 (K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M.SHAFFIQUE
Judgment Date: 2015-06-16
Court Decision / Holding: Petitioner or her authorised representative is permitted to verify the records available in the 2nd respondent’s custody and, after verification, file a proper application for copies specifying the documents sought; the 2nd respondent shall consider such applications and pass appropriate orders, with verification conducted in a manner least disruptive to Panchayath functioning.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed by directing verification of available records in the 2nd respondent’s custody and directing the 2nd respondent to consider and issue copies on proper application, ensuring minimal disruption to Panchayath functioning.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

B. Vasanthi

Respondents

State Information Commission, represented by its Commissioner, Punnen Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Public Information Officer, Vengannoor Grama Panchayath, Vengannoor.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695523
State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Local Authority, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
S. Ashok Kumar, Secretary, Parassala Grama Panchayath, Parassala, Thiruvananthapuram-695502

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Rajesh Kannan
• Sri A.S. Shammy Raj
• Sri N. Hari Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M. Ajay, Senior Counsel
• Sri Poovappally M. Ramachandran Nair
• Sri K.T. Lilly, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C). No. 16503 of 2013) challenges Ext.P9, an order of the State Information Commission directing that the petitioner be allowed to verify records in the custody of the 2nd respondent Panchayath and to obtain copies of documents as may be required. The petition traces an RTI request under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, filed on 20.03.2009, followed by a reply on 07.04.2009, an appeal to the State Public Information Officer, and subsequent orders, including refund of fee in view of concession for BPL card holders. The State Information Commission, after hearing, held that while all available records had been supplied, it allowed the petitioner to verify whether any other documents existed in the office, citing concerns about documents possibly concealed by the Information Officer. The petitioner contends that such an observation conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, which held that under Section 18 the Commission can only impose penalties under Section 20 for non-bona fide action and cannot order access to information. The court ultimately disposes of the petition by directing that the petitioner may verify available records and, after verification, file a proper application for copies, which the 2nd respondent must consider and pass orders on with minimal disruption to Panchayath functioning.

Provisions of Law Cited

Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 6Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 18Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 20

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the State Information Commission’s invitation to verify records and its implication that non-disclosed documents might exist is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, which holds that Section 18 confers no power to order access to information, but only to levy penalties under Section 20 for non-bona fide conduct by the Information Officer. The lack of an explicit directive to supply additional information in Ext.P9 undermines the claim that access must be granted, and the remedy lies in proper application to obtain copies rather than broad access.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that no documents are being withheld and that all available records have already been provided; if any documents are believed to be missing, the petitioner may verify records at the village office and submit a proper application for copies, which the 2nd respondent must process with minimal disruption to office functioning; the State Information Commission’s observation was meant to facilitate verification rather than grant new access.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur	2012 (1) KLT SN 18	Positive	The Kerala High Court cites this Supreme Court decision to support its view that Section 18 cannot be used to compel access to information and that penalties under Section 20 are the proper recourse for non-bona fide action by an information officer.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against B. Vasanthi v. State Information Commission, Vengannoor Grama Panchayath, State of Kerala and S. Ashok Kumar and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/26TH JYAISHTA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 16503 of 2013 (K)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** ## **------------------** **B.VASANTHI, CHETTIKUDI VEEDU, VENNIYOOR, VENGANNOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ SRI.N.HARI KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VENGANNOOR GREAMA PANCHAYATH, VENGANNOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523.** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **4. S.ASHOK KUMAR, SECRETARY, PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695502.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC,** **R2 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 16503 of 2013 (K)** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** ## **-------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT-P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 20.03.2009.** - **EXHIBIT-P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.4.2009 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT .** - **EXHIBIT-P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.04.2009 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT-P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL PASSED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR/APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 5.6.2009.** - **EXHIBIT-P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.1.2011.** - **EXHIBIT-P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATRED 30.4.2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO THE IST RESPONDENT FILED BY PETITIONER DATED 15.5.2012.** - **EXHIBIT-P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 6.5.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** ## **---------------------------------------** **EXT.R2(A): ORDER NO.A4-1401/09 DATED 22.1.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.R2(B): LETTER NO.PA5-5037/13 DATED 21.10.2013 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.16503 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of June 2015 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the State Information Commission permitting her to approach the respondent Panchayath for verifying the records in the office and to demand copy of such documents as has been required by the petitioner. This order came to be passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner alleging that the information sought for by her in terms of Ext.P1 application was not provided by the Public Information Officer attached to the Venganoor Grama Panchayath. When information was not given, an appeal was filed before the State Public Information Officer. Direction was issued to provide all the documents, but the authority insisted for certain fee. However, at a later stage of the proceedings, available documents were given to the petitioner and the fee that was collected was refunded since BPL card holders have some W.P.C.No.16503/2013 2 concession for payment of fee for the documents sought for. State Information Commission, after hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner, formed an opinion that the Commission accepts the contention of the respondent authority that all the available records which were applied for have been given, but in view of the fact that the petitioner had expressed a doubt regarding availability of other documents which were concealed by the Information Officer, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to verify whether such documents were available in the office. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this observation of the State Information Commission is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur** [2012 (1) KLT SN 18] wherein it is stated that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be exercising power under Section 18 can only provide for a penalty as provided under W.P.C.No.16503/2013 3 Section 20, on being satisfied that the action of the Information Officer was not bona fide. There is no jurisdiction vested in the Commission to exercise power under Section 18 to pass an order providing for access to the information. 3. In Ext.P9, apparently there was no direction to provide any information. The said order came to be passed based on an apprehension expressed by the petitioner that documents which were available were not supplied. According to the panchayath, there was no such document as claimed by the petitioner which was not given. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, based on the counter affidavit, submits that if the petitioner has any apprehension that any document which has been requested for in terms with Ext.P1 has been withheld, it is open for the petitioner or her authorised representative to verify any of the records from the village office and to give a proper application to provide copies of the same which could as W.P.C.No.16503/2013 4 well be provided. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under: i) Petitioner or her authorised representative is permitted to verify the records available in the 2[nd] respondent's custody and after verification of the same, proper application shall be submitted requesting for copies of the said document with clear specification and on receipt of the same, 2[nd] respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. ii) It is made clear that verification shall be conducted by the petitioner or her authorised representative with the least inconvenience to the Panchayath and without causing any hindrance to the proper functioning of the office. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.16503/2013 5 W.P.C.No.16503/2013 6 W.P.C.No.16503/2013 7