PRINCIPAL Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are stated to be the Principal and State Public Information Officer (SPIO) attached to a college. The 3rd respondent herein presented an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the 2nd petitioner seeking information regarding admissions made in 2021 and those admitted to the college. The 2nd petitioner, in his capacity as the SPIO, gave Ext.P2 in reply, providing information on some of the queries, while declining to provide information as regards the remaining questions since, according to him, this information amounts to personal information which does not require to be disclosed. Aggrieved by the decision, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority; however, the same was dismissed, as evidenced by Ext. P4 communication. Therefore, a further appeal was instituted before the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent herein, which led to Ext.P8 order being issued by the said authority. While issuing Ext.P8 order, apart from directing the 2nd petitioner herein to provide answers to various queries raised by the 3rd respondent, a proposal to levy penalty under Sec. 20(1) of the Act was also intimated to the petitioners, as evidenced by paragraph 10 of the order. In obedience to the directions, the 2nd petitioner provided various details to the 3rd respondent and also informed the 2nd respondent about the compliance thereof, through Ext.P10. In Ext.P10, the 2nd petitioner also explained the reason why he originally refused to provide answers to some of the queries, apart from seeking to explain certain observations made in Ext.P8 as regards his appointment. The 2nd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P11 notice informing the 2nd petitioner that the explanations offered were not satisfactory, hence the appeal 'requires to be heard once more'. On that basis, the matter was heard again by the 2nd respondent, leading to the issuance of Ext.P12, imposing a penalty of Rs.15,000.00 under the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent also made certain observations as regards the admissions made in the college while deciding to impose penalty, since, according to him, procedures were not transparent. Advice to the Government Secretary for carrying out an enquiry as regards the functioning of the college is also made by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) It is seeking to challenge Ext.P12 issued as above that the petitioners have instituted this writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri.Kurian George Kannathanam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.