LOUIS MATHEW Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, TVM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P13 and P15. Ext.P13 is an order passed by the State Information Commissioner in an appeal filed by the 4th respondent by which decision has been taken to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 20(1)(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that false information had been given to the 4th respondent. Ext.P15 is the order dated 28/02/2013 issued by the State Information Commissioner directing to take disciplinary action against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act.

(2.) The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, while working as Agricultural Officer at Pandalam Thekkekkara, was called upon to send a detailed report in respect of an application submitted by the 4th respondent, Ext.P1 dated 22/03/2010 under the Act. According to the petitioner, the information sought therein is to assess and report the alleged damage said to have been suffered by the 4th respondent, an explanation was sought under what circumstances the land owned by the 4th respondent was converted as a thodu and to ascertain the area of land owned by the 4th respondent which has been allegedly converted as thodu, with reference to the survey plan submitted by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the said work was executed during the year 2009, at an approximate length of about 1585 metres, a depth of 30 Cms and an approximate width of 4 Meters. The work was executed by a beneficiary committee and the duty of the petitioner as Agricultural Officer was to verify the bills submitted by the beneficiary committee and to issue cheques in that regard. The petitioner verified the relevant files and gave the particulars available with the petitioner. It is indicated that no damage was caused to the property of the 4th respondent and that no person was eligible for compensation. The 4th respondent preferred an appeal (Ext.P7) before the Principal Agricultural Officer, Pathanamthitta demanding satisfactory response to Ext.P1 application. On receipt of Ext.P7 appeal, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to give a clear and satisfactory report on the subject. Petitioner submitted a report on 27/05/2010 (Ext.P9) to the 3rd respondent, pursuant to which the 3rd respondent closed the appeal proceedings by forwarding Ext.P9 to the 4th respondent. 4th respondent, dissatisfied with the above information, approached the State Information Commission. The 3rd respondent again sought for a report from the Agricultural Officer, who submitted a report dated 16/09/2010, produced as Ext.P11. Subsequently, 4th respondent submitted a complaint before the 2nd respondent, who again sought for a report and the 3rd respondent gave a report before the 2nd respondent on 09/06/2011 (Ext.P12).

(3.) In Ext.P12 report it was observed that loss if any could be ascertained only by the revenue authorities as they alone can verify the exact area converted from the registered property of the 4th respondent. Hence it was observed that a joint enquiry by the officers of the Revenue and Agricultural Department is necessary. In the meantime, 1st respondent passed Ext.P13 order to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 02/01/2013. However, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P15 order directing disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioner. It is inter alia contended that there is no reason for the 1st respondent to have taken any action against the petitioner under the facts and circumstances involved in the case. It is contended that the information sought for in Ext.P1 is not at all an information provided under the Act, which aspect has not been considered by the 1st respondent before initiating steps against the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged loss of the 4th respondent and he was only asked to give information in relation to a work which is done prior to his joining the said office. That apart, the duty of the Information Officer is only to provide information in material form and he has no obligation to answer any questions sought by the applicant.