SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
P.G.ANILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23615 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.R.VINOD, SMT.M.S.LETHA, KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA, SMT.JACQUELINE JACKSON, SMT. LIYA THANKACHAN, SHRI.KURIAN MAXIE, SHRI.RAHUL.S, SHRI.MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A, SHRI.ASWIN VENUGOPAL, SHRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, SMT.SREEKALA K.L., CGC, SHRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR, SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR, SRI.K.G.MANOJ KUMAR, SHRI.PRASOON.K.P, SMT.ANU PRABHAKAR, SMT.ABHIRAMI P.S, SHRI.VISHNU PRASAD, SHRI.RADHAKRISHNAN K.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE, SHRI.M.AJAY, SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC

Obligation under the Right to Information Act for timely provision of requested documents.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the Right to Information Act, especially Section 20 regarding penalties. The case involved a petition for a writ of mandamus for action against a respondent's non-compliance with information requests. The court found that compliance had occurred, leading to the petition's closure without prejudice to further inquiries. The main issues were the respondents' obligations under the Right to Information Act and whether the petitioner received the requested documents. The court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory mandates regarding information delivery.

Table of Content
1. prayers for action under the right to information act. (Para 1)
2. details of compliance with document requests. (Para 2)
3. court's closure of the writ petition. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers.

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent to take necessary actions including imposing of penalties against the 3rd respondent u/s. 20 of the Right to Information Act .

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents No.3 to issue the document's mentioned in Ext.P4 order of the 4th respondent and thus comply with the said order within a time frame, to secure the ends of justice.

(iii) Issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3, which reads as follows.

“4) This respondent submits that, as per the direction of this honourable court, this respondent issued building permits nos. EYP2/726/07 and EYP2/173/10 owned by P.T. Joseph and its occupancy certificate to the petitioner in the above case. The same is despatched on 6.12.2021 from the office of this respondent. The said documents are issued with covering letter dated 4.12.2021. True copy of the letter dated 4.12.2021 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit R1(a). Thereafter on 4.4.2022 this respondent issued Building plan as mentioned in the Exhibit P1, P3 and P4 in the above writ petition. The said building plan was received by the wife of the petitioner and the same is endorsed. True copy of the letter dated 4.4.2022 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit R1(b). Thus this respondent is complied as per Exhibit P4 order.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received the documents mentioned above.

Under such circumstances, nothing more needs to be considered in this writ petition and the same is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek further information, if so advised.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top