Kerala High Court
Shibu Jacob vs State Public Information Officer And ... on 25 January, 2021
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P)
PETITIONER:
SHIBU JACOB
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. JACOB, THAKADIYEL, ESTHOSE ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA
P.O., NOW RESIDING AT THAKADIYEL HOUSE, VAZHOOR P.O.,
ELAMPALLY KARA, ANICKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686504.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.M.JOSHI
SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, ALAKODE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685588.
2 1ST APPEAL AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-
685588.
3 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT,
STATE OF KERALA, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695039, (SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY).
R3 BY SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP BIMAL K NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of January 2021 The petitioner herein applied for an attested copy of FMB under Section 71 of the Right to Information Act. The first respondent demanded a fee of Rs.1,518/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred eighteen only) for the photocopy of the FMB.
2. According to the petitioner herein, the fees charged by the first respondent was exorbitant and against the provisions of the Right to Information Act, and the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006. In the light of the urgent requirement of the FMB, he remitted the fees on 09.08.2016 and preferred an appeal before the second respondent, challenging the exorbitant fees charged by the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed. He filed a second appeal before the third respondent which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P) 3
3. The reason given by the State Information Commission as is discernible from para 2 of Ext.P5 is that, the petitioner was well-versed in the provision of the Right to Information Act, that he has remitted the fee fully knowing that it was excess and thereafter, approached the authorities challenging the order. It was held that he should not have remitted the fee and should have approached the Commission, challenging it.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission.
5. I cannot justify the stand taken by the State Information Commission, in so far as, it took the view that the petitioner has waived his right to challenge the order by remitting the fee. Evidently, the stand taken by the petitioner indicates that he was not satisfied with the fee collected. Merely because fee has been remitted, that does not take away his right to challenge the proceedings, unless the petitioner, specifically or by necessary implication has waived his right.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P) 4 out that, in an identical case he did not remit the fee and challenged the matter. The matter is still pending as Writ Petition No.33768 of 2016. No orders have been passed.
7. Having considered the entire facts, I feel that by mere remittance of the fee, by itself will not take away the legal right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order if he is really aggrieved.
8. Having considered this, I am inclined to remand the matter to the third respondent - State Information Commission for a fresh consideration of the above appeal. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Information Commission for passing appropriate orders on appeal, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein. The orders shall be passed by the State Information Commission within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE SKP/25-1 WP(C).No.27950 OF 2020(P) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 9.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPEAL DATED 1.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2016 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL DATED 15.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE