PRINCIPAL Vs. STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, this writ appeal is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The appellant institution made a challenge to the order, dated 25.10.2016, made in W.P(MD)No.20621 of 2016, in and by which, the order of the first respondent in directing them, to pay a sum of Rs. 4,500/-, to the second respondent to meet out the travel and related expenses, has been confirmed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant/writ petitioner had availed the statutory remedies and fully complied with the directives of the first respondent and insofar as the award of compensation of Rs. 4,500/- to the second respondent, in lieu of travel and related expenses in connection with attending the enquiries in the said second appeal, it cannot be blamed for the reasons that the case was listed for enquiry, before the first respondent, on 21.07.2016 and the lawyer appeared and since the Public Information Officer was not present, he was directed to appear and accordingly, on the next day, i.e., on 22.07.2016, Dr. A.Lourdsamy, Associate Professor, as the Public Information Officer, appeared and prayed for some time to prepare his response and the matter was listed, on 29.07.2016 and an order came to be passed on the same day itself and as such, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be blamed and as such, the award of compensation towards travel and related expenses is per se unsustainable and prays for interference.