XAVIER LOPEZ Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a social worker. Seeking information with regard to the selection procedure to the post of Vice-Chancellor, the University of Kerala, he submitted separate applications before the 2 nd and 3rd respondents. He contends that by Ext.P4 communication, the 2 nd respondent forwarded the queries to the General Administration Department, and they in turn forwarded the same to the 3 rd respondent on the premise that the information sought for relates to the Higher Education Department. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P5 communication issued by the 3 rd respondent whereby he was directed to approach the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved by the delay in consideration of his applications, he preferred Exts.P6 and P7 appeals before the Appellate Authority of the respondents 2 and 3. Since no action was taken, the petitioner herein filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act , 2005 before the 1 st respondent. During the pendency of the said appeal, Ext.P9 order was issued by the appellate authority of the 2 nd respondent rejecting his request. The petitioner contends that Ext.P8 appeal was later taken up by the 1 st respondent and by Ext.P11 order, the same was dismissed as premature on the premise that the First Appellate Authority has a window period of 30 days from the date of receipt of appeal to dispose of the same. The petitioner in the said circumstances resubmitted the appeal as is evident from Ext.P12. The said appeal was however dismissed by the 1 st respondent by Ext.P13 order on a finding that the 1st respondent has no power to review the orders issued on the second appeal.

(2.) Sri. Liju V.Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that no objection was raised by the respondents that the 2nd appeal was premature. According to the learned counsel, at any rate, there was no justification on the part of the 1 st respondent in concluding that Ext.P12 is a review petition. The petitioner had only resubmitted the appeal since the earlier one was rejected as premature.

(3.) Sri.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent fairly submits that there is an inherent flaw in the Ext.P13 order as Ext.P12 preferred by the petitioner is a resubmission of the appeal and not a review petition. It is contended that if the petitioner prefers separate appeals challenging the orders passed by the authorities concerned, there is no impediment in considering the appeal in accordance with the law.