The court highlighted the obligation of public information officers to provide complete responses under the Right to Information Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner submitted Ext.P13 application before the 2^nd respondent Public Information O which Ext.P15 reply was given. Contending that only one question out of seven was answered, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission, by Ext.P16 order, directed the 2^nd respondent to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act shall not be imposed on him. The petitioner contends that no further orders are passed pursuant to Ext.P16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs :-

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to reconstruct and restore file No. 9270/SIC-G2/2019 and take appropriate action thereon in Ext P5 Second Appeal, if necessary, by obtaining a copy thereof from the petitioner along with the required documents within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to take immediate action for implementation and compliance of Ext P16 order by the 2^nd respondent after rectifying the order by correcting the cause title as sought in Exts.

P19 and P20;”

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration today, Sri. M.Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission submits that there are certain errors in Ext.P16 order. Instead of State Public Information Officer, District Medical Office, Palakkad, it is stated as State Public Information Officer, District Medical Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the said mistake will be corrected and the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P16 will be taken to a logical conclusion after correcting the cause title and that, if the petitioner reconstructs file No.9270/SIC-G2/2019, the same can be relied on by the Commission to pass appropriate orders.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will recreate the said file and submit before the Commission within two weeks from today. The learned Standing Counsel submits that further steps in continuation of file No.9270/SIC-G2/2019 will be taken, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed.