The imposition of penalty by the State Information Commissioner was held invalid due to lack of statutory authority and necessary procedural safeguards under the Right to Information Act.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V.MENON, J.

The petitioners are stated to be the Principal and State Public Information Officer (SPIO) attached to a college. The 3^rd respondent herein presented an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to the 2^nd petitioner seeking information regarding admissions made in 2021 and those admitted to the college. The 2^nd petitioner, in his capacity as the SPIO, gave Ext.P2 in reply, providing information on some of the queries, while declining to provide information as regards the remaining questions since, according to him, this information amounts to personal information which does not require to be disclosed. Aggrieved by the decision, the 3^rd respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority; however, the same was dismissed, as evidenced by Ext. P4 communication. Therefore, a further appeal was instituted before the 1^st respondent by the 3^rd respondent herein, which led to Ext.P8 order being issued by the said authority. While issuing Ext.P8 order, apart from directing the 2^nd petitioner herein to provide answers to various queries raised by the 3^rd respondent, a proposal to levy penalty under Section 20 (1) of the Act was also intimated to the petitioners, as evidenced by paragraph 10 of the order. In obedience to the directions, the 2^nd petitioner provided various details to the 3^rd respondent and also informed the 2^nd respondent about the compliance thereof, through Ext.P10. In Ext.P10, the 2^nd petitioner also explained the reason why he originally refused to provide answers to some of the queries, apart from seeking to explain certain observations made in Ext.P8 as regards his appointment. The 2^nd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P11 notice informing the 2^nd petitioner that the explanations offered were not satisfactory, hence the appeal ‘requires to be heard once more’. On that basis, the matter was heard again by the 2^nd respondent, leading to the issuance of Ext.P12, imposing a penalty of Rs.15,000/- under the provisions of the Act. The 2^nd respondent also made certain observations as regards the admissions made in the college while deciding to impose penalty, since, according to him, procedures were not transparent. Advice to the Government Secretary for carrying out an enquiry as regards the functioning of the college is also made by the 2^nd respondent.

2. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P12 issued as above that the petitioners have instituted this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri.Kurian George Kannathanam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent.

4. According to Sri.Kannathanam, the impugned order at Ext.P12 requires to be set aside since,

i. The same amounts to a ‘rehearing’, for which there is no enabling provision under the Act.

ii. The same has been issued by the 2^nd respondent-State Information Commissioner and not by the State Information Commission.

iii. According to him, the State Information Commis-sioner and the State Information Commission are vis- ualised separately under the statute, as is clear from the definition clauses.

iv. He would also rely on Section 19 (3) of the Act to contend