IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
ANIL KUMAR R. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 30847 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to denial of information. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. public interest considered over objections. (Para 4) |
| 3. order to rehear the appeal. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the State Information Commission. Petitioner had sought certain information regarding the employees of the Kerala State Chalachithra Academy through Ext.P1. Except for the information for question No.7, all others were furnished. The petitioner was not satisfied with the same and filed an appeal, which also resulted in a dismissal.
2. The petitioner thereafter approached the State Information Commission, which passed Ext.P9, the impugned order, on the ground that since question No.7 pertained to third- party information, notices were issued to the third party, and as they opposed supplying information, the same cannot be granted.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Section
4, which states the obligation of the public authority to disclose the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations. Petitioner also relies on Section 11 , which contends that even if the third party is opposed to granting information, as per the proviso, except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
4. In view of the above provisions, the State Information Commission was not justified in rejecting the request solely on the ground that the third party objected to the grant of information. The State Information Commission did not consider the impact of the proviso to Section 11 , as to whether the larger public interest outweighs the grant of information sought for.
5. Under such circumstances, Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained, and the same is quashed, and the 1st respondent is directed to rehear the appeal No.A.P.2300(3)/2024/S.I.C (File No.157/S.I.C-G1/2024) and pass fresh orders with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.