Dr. Hari C.V vs Indian Institute Of Information ... on 10 February, 2025

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dr. Hari C.V vs Indian Institute Of Information ... on 10 February, 2025

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26741 of 2024, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed in the writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge closed the interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking a direction against the 1st respondent Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam to provide and produce certain informations/documents, observing that if the documents sought for by the petitioner are found required at the time of hearing, the Court can call for them.

2. The appellant, who participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-I and Assistant Professor Grade-II in the 1st respondent Institute, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

W.A. No.2078 of 2024

2025:KER:10381 "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to: Ext P1 and Exts.P4 to P7 and Exts.P8 to P11, to the extent that they apply to the selection of Assistant Professor Grade II, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, IIIT, Kottayam;

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P1 and Exts.P4 to P7 and Exts.P8 to P11, to the extent that they apply to the selection of Assistant Professor Grade II, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, IIIT, Kottayam;

(iii) Declare that the selection and appointment of the candidates as per Ext.P7 is illegal and quash their appointments as illegal;

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and

3 to enquire into the legality of the recruitment process for Assistant Professor Grade I & Assistant Professor Grade II, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, IIIT, Kottayam and take appropriate penal action against the 1st respondent;"

3. According to the appellant the entire selection process has been a sham for appointing the former ad hoc employees of the 1st respondent to the post of Assistant Professor Grade II. In the 7 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 writ petition, the appellant filed I.A. No.2 of 2024 to direct the 1 st respondent to provide and produce the following information-

documents.

"(a) Separate mark-sheets of the written examination, power point presentation and interview of all the 25 candidates (shortlisted after the written test) for the afore mentioned post;

(b) Rank List for the afore mentioned post;

(c) Educational qualifications and working experience of respondents 5 to 16, the selected candidates;

(d) Number of Ad Hoc faculty members selected to the post of Assistant Professor Grade II;

(e) Separate marks scored by the petitioner in the written examination, power point presentation and interview;

(f) True copy of the petitioner's answer-sheet with marks awarded for each question;

(g) All the details of the members of the Interview Board, with name, designation and address;

(h) Separate marks awarded to the petitioner by each member of the Interview Board;

(i) The reason for not calling the petitioner for the interview for Assistant Professor Grade I, even after he had cleared the common written test;

(j) The Minutes and Video-Recording of the written 8 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 examination, power point presentation & Interview of the candidates held on 07.11.2023 and 08.11.2023 and provisionally selected as per Ext. P6 for the afore mentioned post, so as to ascertain as to who among the members of the Interview Board was was present and whether the Registrar of the IIIT, Kottayam, was also present during the written exam, power point presentation & interview;

(k) True copy of the Appointment Orders Issued by the 1 respondent IIIT, Kottayam, either by E-mail or by Hand or by Post, to respondents 5 to 16, the selected candidates."

4. The additional 4th respondent Registrar of the 1st respondent Institute filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the application. After hearing both sides, the learned single judge passed the following order in the interlocutory application:

"This interlocutory application is filed by the writ petitioner for a direction to the 1st respondent to produce certain information/documents in their possession. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is stated that when the petitioner sought for the aforesaid information/documents under the Right to Information Act, the 1st respondent refused to supply the same. If an information sought for is declined by the Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 it is for the petitioner to seek remedy under the said Act. If the documents sought for by the 9 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 petitioner are found required at the time of hearing, this Court can call for the documents. Therefore, no orders are necessary in this Interlocutory Application."

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 4, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the party respondents/appointees, the learned Central Government counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel for the party respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had already approached the 1st respondent, under the Right to Information Act, for the necessary documents and information sought in the interlocutory application filed in the writ petition. Since the appellant was not provided the documents and information, he had to file the interlocutory application, so as to facilitate him to take proper contentions in the writ petition. But the learned Single Judge closed the interlocutory application stating that the documents could be called for in a later stage if found necessary. No purpose will be served by passing such an order. When a query was made by this Court regarding the non- 10 W.A. No.2078 of 2024

2025:KER:10381 mentioning of the necessity of each information and document separately in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the learned counsel vehemently submitted that the reason for seeking those documents and information is self-evident and the Court is not expected to find a third party case, especially when the respondents did not raise such a contention in the counter affidavit as well during hearing before the learned Single Judge. In support of his said arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) and others [2024 SCC Online SC 3776].

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 4 argued that the appellant had admittedly filed a petition under the provisions of the Right to Information Act seeking the information and documents mentioned as (a) to (i) in I.A. No.2 of 2024. If the documents or information were not provided to him under the Right to Information Act, his remedy is under the said Act itself and not in the writ petition. By relying on the pleadings in paragraphs 4 to 17 of the counter affidavit, the learned Senior 11 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 Counsel vehemently argued that the details of the information provided and not provided to the appellant are specifically stated in the counter affidavit. Hence no further consideration is necessary in those aspects at this early stage of the writ petition. Moreover, only if the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is one affecting or touching upon substantial rights or liabilities of the appellant, he is entitled to file an appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. In support of the said argument, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Salmikoya. K [2025 (1) KLT 65]. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appeal has to be dismissed with exemplary costs since it is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

8. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the party respondents/appointees would submit that the interlocutory application filed by the appellant is not dismissed by the learned Single Judge, but closed for the time being with an observation that the documents can be called for if warranted at a later stage 12 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 and hence not appealable. The learned Central Government counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 7, 9,11, and 15 supported the arguments of the learned senior counsels.

9. The appellant participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-I as well as Assistant Professor Grade-II in the 1st respondent Institute notified by virtue of Ext.P1 notification dated 31.01.2023. According to him, though he cleared the common written examination for both posts, he was called for a presentation and interview only for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-II. On finalisation of the selection process, as per Ext.P7 information note dated 15.11.2023, twelve candidates were shortlisted for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-II, wherein the appellant was not included. No candidates were selected for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-I. Thereafter, the appellant submitted separate applications under the Right to Information Act to the 1st respondent requesting various information relating to the selection process. When no 13 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 information was received on time, he filed an online appeal also under the Right to Information Act. According to the appellant, though Exts.P8 to P11, replies dated 07.02.2024. 09.02.2024, 15.03.2024 and 17.04.2024 were given by the 1st respondent, no information sought was furnished to him. It is thereafter the appellant challenged the selection process itself by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising various grounds. After the appearance of the respondents, he filed I.A. No. 2 of 2024 as said above, which ultimately resulted in the filing of the above appeal.

10. The perusal of the information sought as well as the document requested to be produced by the 1st respondent as per I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by the appellant would make it clear that most of them is either personal information or in respect of a selection process conducted by the 1st respondent which is not finalized by appointing any particular candidate or candidates. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit pertaining to each information or document requested in I.A. No.2 of 14 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 2024. Paragraphs 4 to 17 of the said counter affidavit reads thus:

"4. As evidenced by Exhibit P8, the reply dated 07.02.2024 given by the PIO to petitioner's RTI request dated 20.11.2023, produced in the Writ Petition, the petitioner had already made a request for obtaining information with respect to 5 queries, of which query nos. (1) and (2) are marked as items (a) and (b) in the above I.A. It could be seen from Exhibit P8 that the first request of 'providing separate marks scored in written examination and interview by all 25 candidates' was denied as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The same Exhibit P8 also indicated that his request for 'providing rank list' was answered under query no. 2, stating that "the list of provisionally selected candidates were already uploaded on the institute website, for the information of all" and this list has been produced and marked by the petitioner in the writ petition as Exhibit P6, the Information Note dated 07.11.2023 and Exhibit P7, the Information Note dated 15.11.2023.

5. With respect to item (c), the requirement is for providing 'educational qualifications and working experience of respondent nos. 5 to 16, the selected candidates', which was raised as query no.1 in the petitioner's RTI request dated 20.11.2023. As evidenced from Exhibit P9, the reply dated 09.02.2024, PIO answered this query by stating that 'the personal information cannot be shared as per Section 8 15 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005'.

6. The 4th item, mentioned as (d), concerns the 'Number of Ad Hoc faculty members selected for the post of Assistant Professor Grade II'. Referring to Exhibit P10, the reply dated 15.03.2024 given by the PIO to petitioner's RTI request dated 18.02.2024, it can be seen that query no. 8 of petitioner's RTI request sought: 'Out of 12 candidates selected as Assistant Professor Grade II to the Department of ECE (as per Information Note on the Institute's website dated 15th November, 2023), how many candidates had worked as Ad hoc in IIIT Kottayam before?', which is the same information/document sought as item (d) in the above I.A. but put forward in slightly different manner in the RTI request. The reply given by the PIO to this query was "no such information is available as a part of the decision of the selection committee.'"

7. In the above I.A., item (e) requests 'separate marks scored by the petitioner in the written examination, PowerPoint presentation, and interview'. The petitioner had sought the same information/document as query no. 1 in Exhibit P10. The PIO's reply to query no.1 is as under: "since the Institute has to protect the candidates' personal matters and prevent accidental sharing to a third party, you may visit the PIO of the Institute on a mutually convenient and pre-decided date and time. Please intimate your preferred dates of visit (at least 3 preferences) to the undersigned 16 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 within 14 days. You will be provided with the information after ensuring confidentiality, verifying your identity with the Identity card submitted at the time of the written test, as well as the admit card signed by the invigilators, etc. Under CCTV surveillance, you can note down your marks as recorded in the minutes of the Selection Committee, were marks of other candidates will be masked". Despite being given permission to verify the marks as requested, with instructions to give sufficient notice to the authorities, the petitioner has not pursued this option and has not intimated a convenient date for perusing the marks.

8. With respect to query (f), regarding 'the true copy of the petitioner's answer sheet with marks awarded for each question', Exhibit P10 reveals that the petitioner had already made this request in query no. 5 of his RTI application dated 18.02.2024. The reply given by the PIO, as evidenced in Exhibit P10, states, "since the Institute has to protect the candidates' personal matters and prevent accidental sharing to a third party, you may visit the PIO of the Institute on a mutually convenient and pre-decided date and time. You may intimate your preferred dates of visit (at least 3 preferences) to the undersigned within 14 days. You will be provided with the information after ensuring confidentiality, verification of your identity with the Identity card submitted at the time of the written test, as well as the admit card signed by the invigilators, under CCTV surveillance. You can 17 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 note down the total marks awarded to you as marked in the answer sheet. Marks awarded to each question will be masked as they fall under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, related to invigilators."

9. With respect to item (g), the petitioner requested 'all the details of the members of the interview board, including their names, designations, and address'. Referring to Exhibit P10 again, it can be seen that query no.10 put forth by the petitioner in his RTI request dated 18.02.2024 is the same as the information/document sought as item (g) in the above I.A. The answer furnished to him by the PIO stated that 'personal information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.'

10. In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497], the Apex Court, as per the dictum laid down in para 63, observed that where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act, does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. Further, in the above-mentioned decision, paragraphs 52 and 53 highlight the consequences that interviewers or members of the interview board would be exposed to in the event their names and addresses or 18 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 individual marks given by them are directed to be disclosed. Firstly, the members of the Board are likely to be exposed to danger to their lives or physical safety. Secondly, it will hamper effective performance and discharge of their duties as examiners. The Court observed that such information is available with the examining body in confidence with the interviewers and therefore, a direction to furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. The same dictum has been followed later in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, [(2012) 13 SCC 61], in paragraphs 28 and 29.

11. As per item (h), the petitioner requested 'separate marks awarded to him by each member of the Interview Board'. This query was reiterated in Exhibit P10 as query no.

13. The answer given to him by the PIO stated that 'personal information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005' since it would endanger the life or physical safety of the members of the Selection Committee. This dictum is laid down in the decisions mentioned in paragraph 9.

12. The next item (i) concerned 'the reason for not calling the petitioner for the interview for Assistant Professor Grade I, even after clearing the common written test'. As evidenced from Exhibit P10, this question was raised by the petitioner as query no. 2. It has been duly answered by the 19 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 PIO in the following manner: "the reason is not applicable under RTI Act. As per records, the Selection Committee does not recommend any of the applicants for Assistant Professor Grade I for the Department of ECE".

13. It is most respectfully submitted that it is established as a legal principle that the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 does not include answers to the question 'why'. The PIO cannot be expected to communicate the reasons as to why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because a citizen makes a requisition about information. In this regard, reliance is placed on Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission, 2008 SCC Online Bom 352. In the present case, the petitioner submitted an application seeking reasons for not being called for the interview. As per Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information can be accessed that is held by or under the control of the public authority. The information sought by the petitioner could not have been with the public authority, nor could they have accessed this information. Hence, neither the PIO nor the 1st Respondent Institute was obliged to give any reason as to why he was not called.

14. It is evident from the above submissions that the petitioner has repeatedly requested items (a) to (i) of the above I.A., despite having already filed numerous RTI requests seeking the very same information/documents 20 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 from the 1st respondent Institute. The petitioner received replies to his RTI requests from the PIO of the 1st respondent Institute, and for the very same items (a) to (i), further appealed before the First Appellate Authority (the additional 4th respondent) upon being dissatisfied with the replies given by PIO. The First Appellate Authority, in turn, upheld the replies given by the PIO and disposed of the first appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner has even approached the Central Information Commissioner, preferring a second appeal which is still pending. As is evident from the documents produced by the petitioner himself in the writ petition, it is crystal clear that he had already taken action for eliciting information/documents identical to items (a) to

(i), in spite of which he had filed a separate application before this Hon'ble Court under the pretext that he had not been given those information/documents. Since the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has not put forward the correct set of facts before the Court, it is humbly submitted that the requests made as per items (a) to (i) should be rejected in limine.

15. With respect to item (j), it is humbly pointed out that the video recordings of the written examination, PowerPoint presentation and interview are not preserved. Video Recordings were made solely to ensure the smooth conduct of the recruitment proceedings and to avoid doubts about the functioning and the selection process undertaken by the 21 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 Selection Committee. After due review by the Selection Committee, it was determined that there was no relevance in preserving the video recordings and hence, they were not preserved.

16. It is further pointed out that as per item (j), petitioner had also requested to ascertain which members of the Interview Board were present and whether the additional 4th respondent (the Registrar of 1st Respondent Institute) was present during the written examination, PowerPoint presentation, and interview. Regarding this, it may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the counter affidavit filed by the additional 4th respondent in I.A. No.1 of 2024, against being impleaded in the above writ petition in his personal capacity, clearly enumerates the role of the Registrar in the recruitment process. From Annexure R4(a) produced along with the counter affidavit, it is clear that his participation is only to facilitate and assist the Selection Committee as and when convened, for which the Registrar is specifically authorized by the Director. Additionally, Section 24(2) of the Indian Institutes of Information Technology (Public-Private Partnership) Act, 2017 also outlines the powers and duties assigned to the Registrar under the Act or by Director of the concerned Institute.

17. With respect to the last item (k), which requests the furnishing of true copy of appointment orders issued by the 1st respondent Institute, either by email or by hand or by 22 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 post, to additional respondents 5 to 16, the selected candidates, it is humbly pointed out that this information/ these documents are personal and cannot be furnished. Moreover, it is contended that the petitioner has not made any application under the RTI Act to the appropriate authority, which he is bound to approach first. Without making such an application, and by side-tracking this process, the petitioner cannot approach this Hon'ble Court for furnishing information/documents, which, in fact, have to be provided only by the concerned authorities (either the PIO or First Appellate Authority or CIC) under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the requests made under clauses (j) and (k) should not be entertained by this Hon'ble Court."

11. The perusal of the reasons stated in the counter affidavit would show that the 1st respondent has raised some serious objections regarding some of the information and documents sought by the appellant, for the reason that they are undisclosable as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. From the counter affidavit extracted above, it is clear that the un- objected portions of the information sought by the appellant under the Right to Information Act are furnished to him by the 1st 23 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 respondent. But nothing has been stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant about that information already furnished to him and he filed the interlocutory application as if no information was provided to him.

12. The appellant is challenging the selection process by raising various contentions. According to the learned counsel for the appellant in order to proceed with the writ petition, the information and documents sought are highly necessary before the stage of hearing of the writ petition. According to him, the appellant has no information on those aspects. Then how the appellant came to know or understood that no proper procedure was followed or the selection process was conducted in a biased manner by the 1st respondent is best known to the appellant alone.

13. As said above, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2 of 2024, no document or information-wise reason is stated by the appellant. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads thus: 24 W.A. No.2078 of 2024

2025:KER:10381 "1. I am the petitioner in this Writ Petition(Civil), I am swearing this affidavit on my behalf and I am conversant with the facts of the case. The Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed praying for setting aside the selection process to the post of Assistant Professor Grade II in the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering in the 1st respondent Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam (IIT, Kottayam) declaring the selection as illegal;

a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to hold an enquiry/disciplinary action against those responsible for the illegal selection process; and for incidental reliefs.

2. The selection of respondents 5 to 16, is under challenge on various grounds, including, omission and failure to mention the number of posts in the Notification, making the entire selection illegal, illegality in the constitution of the Selection Committee; and allocation of 50% of marks for Interview, which runs counter to the dicta of the Honourable Supreme Court.

3. This Honourable Court has admitted the Writ Petition and has on 16.08.2024, directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits within three weeks.

4. Prior to the filing of the above writ petition, the 1 st respondent Institute had refused to supply information relating to the selection-process, requested by the petitioner through a number of RTI Act Applications. The information sought, is germane to, and is absolutely 25 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. The following information/documents in the possession of the 1st respondent IIIT, Kottayam, are required to be produced before this Hon'ble Court:

        xxx                    xxx                      xxx"
                                               (underline supplied)

14. When this Court raised a query regarding the non-

mentioning of the reason for seeking large number of information and documents in the affidavit filed, it cannot be claimed as a third-party case found by the Court. In Geetanjali Tiwari [2024 SCC Online SC 3776] the caution against finding a third-party case was made by the Apex Court in an entirely different context. A reading of Paragraph 37 of the said judgment makes it clear; which reads thus:

"37. Based on the aforesaid authorities, we hold that while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ court's enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the 26 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing."

15. In this case, the pleadings which ought to have been therein in the affidavit, so as to facilitate the Court to arrive at a finding regarding the necessity of a direction to be issued to produce the document or furnish the information are completely absent in the affidavit. Hence the dictum in Geetanjali Tiwari's [2024 SCC Online SC 3776] is not applicable to the facts of this case.

16. The learned counsel for the appellant by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 161] argued that the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 226 by this Court is equal or wider than the jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Saksena K.K v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage[(2015) 4 SCC 673] the learned 27 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 counsel argued that the power of issuing direction, orders or writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not limited to the Government or authority which qualifies to be a State under Article

12. The power of the High Court takes within its sweep more authorities than stipulated in Article 12. Further by relying on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar v. Public Information Officer [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3513], the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the marks awarded to a candidate in a selection process is not a personal information which can be refused under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

17. In the instant case, there is no dispute pertaining to the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue before us is the necessity of allowing the interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge to provide the information and documents which are mentioned in the said application. Therefore, the judgments of the Apex court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha [(1984) 3 SCC 161] and Saksena 28 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 [(2015) 4 SCC 673] are not relevant to the facts herein. Similarly, the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3513] was passed in a matter where the petitioner therein was refused the information by the Public Information Commissioner as well as the Appellate Authority when applied under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, holding that the information sought is personal information. That is not the issue before us. The interlocutory application filed by the appellant was not dismissed for the reason that the information and documents requested therein are personal information falling in the exempted category under the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the said judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the case.

18. The Impugned order would show that the learned Single Judge has not dismissed the interlocutory application. The learned Single Judge only opined that the document sought by the appellant could be called for at the time of the hearing, if found necessary. No prejudice would be caused to the appellant by that 29 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 order passed by the learned Single Judge.

19. Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act deals with appeals from judgment or order of Single Judge. As per Section 5(i) of the Act an appeal shall lie to a Bench of Two Judges from a judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction. In K.S Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358(L.B.)] a larger Bench of this Court held that the word 'order' in Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act includes, apart from other orders, orders passed by the High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions provided the orders are to be in Courts pending the writ petition. In the said judgment, it is further held that an appeal would lie against such orders only if the orders substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the parties.

20. In Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Salmikoya. K. [2025 (1) KLT 65] this Court considered the maintainability of an appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, 30 W.A. No.2078 of 2024 2025:KER:10381 and held that an appeal under that provision is maintainable against an interlocutory order only if the order substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or which are matters of the moment and cause substantial prejudice to the parties.

21. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be treated as of such a nature substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the appellant. If the information sought by the appellant was not provided by the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, then his remedy is under that Act itself. He cannot fish out evidence by filing an application in the writ petition, that also without any reason stated for seeking such information and documents.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the rival submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 31 W.A. No.2078 of 2024

2025:KER:10381 In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE sks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court