K.KRISHNAN Vs. KERALA STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be an applicant for certain information from the Public Information Officer attached to the Forest Department, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P7 order issued by the 2nd respondent-Chief Forest Conservator, High Range Circle, Kottayam, which is the competent Appellate Authority, which, according to the petitioner, has been issued in violation of Ext.P6 order of the State Information Commission.

(2.) The petitioner says that on an earlier occasion, when he was not given the information sought for, he had approached the State Information Commission and had obtained Ext.P6 order, wherein certain specific directions were issued to the State Public Information Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Idukki; but that in spite of such specific directions, Ext.P7 order has been issued denying such information. The petitioner, therefore, prays that both Exts.P6 and P7 be set aside.

(3.) When I hear Sri. Tony Pettah, the learned counsel for the petitioner as afore, the first thing that amazes me is as to why the petitioner has sought for Ext.P6 to be quashed, since that order appears to be in his favour. In fact, it is the petitioner's specific case that the State Information Commission, through Ext.P6, has directed the 3rd respondent herein to furnish information sought for by him and, therefore, when the petitioner challenges the said order, it would amount to virtually depriving himself of any remedy under the Right to Information Act. Perhaps, this challenge has been made by mistake and I, therefore, will now consider the challenge against Ext.P7.