JOHN NUMPELI Vs. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a lawyer practicing in this Court, submitted Ext. P1 application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) to the Public Information Officer, Corporation of Kochi, Ernakulam. It is stated that though pursuant to Ext. P1, photostat copies of all documents sought, except a copy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department, were furnished to the petitioner, they were not attested, or certified by the first respondent as copies furnished under the Act. The petitioner has also stated that though he met the second respondent, who is the appellate authority under the Act and requested him to issue attested certified copies, the second respondent did not accede to his request, but on the other hand he gave oral directions to his subordinate to issue only un-attested or un-certified copies stating that there is a general instruction from the Local Self Government Department that copies issued under the Act shall not be certified. In this Writ Petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the first respondent to certify the copies of documents furnished to him pursuant to Ext. P1 application as copies issued under the Act. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the first respondent to furnish to him with copy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department. Respondents 1 and 2 have sworn to a counter affidavit dated 15.1.2014. As regards the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department, in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that a copy of the No Objection Certificate was not given as it was not available in the files. As regards the other relief prayed for in the Writ Petition it is stated that there is no mandate or provision to certify the copies issued under the Act as copies issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also stated that the Act does not contemplate it and that it only intends to provide access to information for citizens. It is also contended that certified copies can be issued only in respect of public documents, that the Act does not provide for certifying the copies issued under the Act, that such certification may even give authenticity to the documents which are not genuine or even fabricated and such a course is likely to adversely affect the very interests of the society and the country as a whole. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.1.2014 containing the aforesaid averments are extracted below:-

(2.) I heard Sri. Vinod Vallikappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Babu Karukapadath, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation of Kochi as also Smt. Anitha Ravindran, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala. As regards the No Objection Certificate, which is the subject matter of relief No. 2, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, the petitioner should, in my opinion, move the Fire and Rescue Services Department requesting the Public Information Officer for information in that regard. As regards the first relief sought for, viz. a direction to the first respondent to certify the copies of documents furnished to the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P1 application as copies issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the stand taken by the respondents is that the Act does not contemplate such certification. Reliance is placed on S. 7 of the Act in support of the said contention. Though S. 7 of the Act does not refer to issuance of certified copies it is evident from the definition of the terms "information" and "right to information" occurring in S. 2(f) and 2(j) respectively of the Act, that the Act contemplates issue of certified copies. The term "information is defined in S. 2(f) of the Act as follows:-