B.S.JAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as the Superintending Engineer in the second respondent Corporation, also acting as the State Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') received an application dtd. 23/3/2011 (Ext.P1) from the third respondent herein asking whether permission is required for putting up a church and whether any permission has been given for putting up a church (Alice Devadas Memorial CSI Church) at Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram District, close to the petitioner's residence and if granted, copies of the same were sought. Since no information was furnished by the third respondent to the petitioner, he moved the first appellate authority on 25/4/2011 (Ext.P2). Notice of the said appeal dtd. 28/5/2011 was served on the petitioner on 31/5/2011 and the petitioner gave a reply dtd. 6/5/2011 answering the first question and stating that since the building in question is more than 15 years old, it is not possible to find out whether permit for the construction activities had been granted and that a reply would be sent after obtaining the requisite information from the records.

(2.) The third respondent, the applicant not satisfied with the reply, moved the State Information Commission. On receipt of notice in the second appeal, the Corporation gave a reply stating that there was a direction given to the overseer on 30/3/2011 for conducting a physical inspection of the church in question, but since it was remaining closed, details could not be got and therefore on enquiry with the neighours, information was got and a reply was given to the applicant as aforesaid. The petitioner was transferred to Thrissur Corporation on 16/7/2011 and the successor in office had given a reply to the first respondent-Commissioner on 12/5/2011 on similar lines as Ext.P6 reply. The first respondent considered the appeal on 19/4/2012 and on the same day the Corporation had furnished a reply to the third respondent stating that from the registers in the Corporation, it is seen that no permission was granted for constructing a church and that no number has been assigned to the building in question and thus a reply was delivered to the petitioner on 20/4/2011.

(3.) Earlier the successor in office of the petitioner had given a reply as Ext.P9 before the Commissioner pointing out that he had taken charge on 3/10/2011 and that there were several works that had to be completed before March 31st of the said year and the Corporation had more than 100 Wards and because of the pressure of work and also the work of giving replies in the cases pending before the High Court, Ombudsman, Tribunals, the Human Right Commission, etc., that there was delay in responding to the application of the third respondent. The Commission issued yet another notice on 28/4/2012 holding that there was delay in giving a reply warranting action under Sec. 20 of the Act and explanation was sought for from the petitioner. The petitioner responded to Ext.P1 stating that though the petitioner had forwarded the application immediately after its receipt, the physical inspection took some time as the church was closed and the details had to be collected from the neighbour's and the fact that there was no documents available with respect to the construction with the Corporation, was intimated to the third respondent on 10/5/2011. It was specifically stated in the reply that it was for want of documents at the relevant time that resulted in the delay in giving to the reply to the information sought.