V.M. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the delay in considering Ext.P-8, which is a second appeal submitted by him before the 1st respondent-State Information Commission under the provisions of section 19(3) of the Right To Information Act, 2005. The case of the petitioner is that for properly defending him in the criminal proceedings, wherein he has been arrayed as accused, he requires certain documents in connection with Crime Nos.35/201140/2011 of Palakkad Kasaba Police Station (which was later transferred to the C.B.I for investigation). In that regard he had submitted Ext.P-1 application dated 20.11.2017 before the 4th respondent-Public Information Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the request made by him for disclosure of the information sought for, has been rejected by the original authority as well as first appellate authority. The petitioner would contend that the information sought for by him in Ext.P-1 application would come under section 5 of the Right To Information Act and would not attract any of the exempted categories as provided in Sections 89 of the said Act. The petitioner has now preferred Ext.P-8 second appeal memorandum dated 8.2.2018 before the 1st respondent-State Information Commission as per the enabling provisions contained in section 19(3) of the Right To Information Act. It is in the light of these factual averments, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for State Information Commission, appearing for R-1 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for R-2 to R-4.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance on the provisions contained in section 19(6) of the Right To Information Act to contend that the 1st respondent-State Information Commission is statutorily mandated to dispose of a second appeal within a maximum period of 45 days, etc. Per contra, Sri.M.Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for R-1 would submit that time limit stipulated under sub-sec (6) of Sec. 19 is only in respect of an appeal envisaged under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Sec. 19 as the case may be and is not applicable in the case of a second appeal which could be filed before the State Information Commission as envisaged under sub-sec (3) of Sec. 19. Sec. 19 reads as follows: