SIJO SEBASTAIN Vs. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, party-in-person, Mr.Sebastian is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following prayers:

(2.) After service of notice the 1st respondent-Karnataka Information Commission is represented by its Panel Counsel who opposes the writ petition inter alia submitting that the petition is lavishly drafted and its tenor is objectionable; whether penalty should be levied or not, is a matter of discretion and therefore is not ordinarily susceptible to judicial review of the writ court; even otherwise the information sought for having been shared with the petitioner, the present grievance is unsustainable. So contending he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) The 2nd respondent-Public Information Officer has remained unrepresented despite service of notice and the petitioner contends that this is nothing short of an affront to the Writ Court. Whatever that be, the 2nd respondent remaining unrepresented would not interdict the hearing & disposal of this matter in accordance with law.