Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
AYYAPPASWAMY. S. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. submission of a petition to information officer led to incomplete responses. (Para 1) |
| 2. errors in prior orders necessitated correction for proper enforcement. (Para 2) |
| 3. the petitioner's commitment to rectify the information file. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner submitted Ext.P13 application before the 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st 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 fr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
