RAISA EAPEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the State Information Commission, Kerala, by which the penalty proceedings against the 3 rd respondent, the State Public Information Officer (SPIO), under Sec. 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in Ext.P3 complaint filed by the petitioner, were dropped.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted Form-6 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 seeking reclassification of land. The petitioner states that, as per Circular No. LR/2207/2022-LR(A4)- Part(1) dtd. 24/12/2023 issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner, all Form-6 applications received on or before 31/12/2023 were required to be included and disposed of in the Revenue Adalat held on 17/2/2024. However, despite being fully eligible, the petitioner's application was arbitrarily excluded from consideration in the Adalat. Since no satisfactory explanation for such exclusion was forthcoming, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dtd. 18/5/2024 to the 3 rd respondent who was then the SPIO, Revenue Divisional Office, Fort Kochi, seeking information under the RTI Act. However, no reply was furnished within the statutory period of 30 days. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 second appeal under Sec. 19(3) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commission. Upon receipt of the appeal, the State Information Commission issued notice to the 3 rd responent seeking an explanation. The 3rd respondent replied to the State Information Commission, stating that a reply to Ext. P1 was issued on 26/6/2024. The petitioner states that no such reply was ever served on her.

(3.) The State Information Commission by Ext.P5 order observed that the 3rd respondent had failed to furnish information within the time prescribed and furnished false and misleading information and called for explanation as to why penalty proceedings under Sec. 20(1) of the RTI Act shall not be taken against him. The 3 rd respondent furnished an explanation stating that the petitioner's online application in Form-6 was submitted only on 8/1/2024, after the cut off date of 31/12/2023, which can be verified, and that the delay in providing the information was due to work connected with the counting of votes in the election, transfer of staff, delay in allotment of e-office ID to new Junior Superintendant and that no misleading information had been furnished. The Commission accepted the explanation of the 3rd respondent and found that there was no wilful failure on his part in furnishing the information, and accordingly passed Ext.P6 final order, dropping further proceedings in the complaint.