AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Murali Purushothaman, J
The petitioner has been granted dealership of a gas agency by the Indian Oil Corporation and the petitioner is running the said agency in the name and style as T R Gas Agency at Mattannur in Kannur District.
The fourth respondent submitted Ext.P3 application under Right to Information Act, 2005(RTI Act) before the District Supply Officer, Kannur (DSO), the Public Information Officer seeking information regarding the distribution of LPG cylinders from the Gas agency of the petitioner. It appears that the said application was made over by the DSO to the Taluk Supply Officer (TSO), the 2nd respondent and the TSO by Ext.P2 letter transferred the application to the petitioner for furnishing the information sought for in Ext.P3. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent submitted Ext.P5 application under the RTI Act before the TSO, seeking information regarding refilled cooking gas cylinders distributed from the Gas agency of the petitioner. The TSO by Ext.P4 letter transferred the application to the petitioner for furnishing the information sought for in Ext.P5. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 letter to the second respondent stating that he is not liable to furnish the information sought for in Exts.P3 and P5.
Exts.P3 and P5 relate to the year 2011. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P7 communication from the TSO enclosing a copy of Ext.P8 order issued by the State Information Commissioner, Kerala (SIC) and directing the petitioner to furnish the information sought for in Ext.P5 within seven days. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order issued by the SIC as one passed in violation of principles of natural justice and breach of provisions of the RTI Act.
In Ext.P8 order, referring to a complaint dated 3.11.2009 of the 3rd respondent regarding refilled cooking gas cylinder distributed from the Gas Agency of the petitioner from 01.07. 2009 to 26.07. 2009 submitted to the State Public Information Officer, District Supply Office, Kannur (SPIO) vide his RTI application dated 27.07.2009 and his complaint there on under section 18(1) of the RTI Act, the SIC, after hearing the 3rd respondent, the SPIO and the DSO through video conferencing passed certain direction and the relevant portion of the order dated 30.04.2010 reads thus;
'...The petitioner submitted that he has not yet received the information requested. He requested for information because there were bogus gas connections. More than 30% of the gas cylinders have been distributed to bogus addresses in his area.
The State Public Information Officer submitted that the information could not be provided, as the gas agency was reluctant to provide the information.
The Commission observed that all the gas agencies are under the control of the District Collector, who is helped by the District Supply Officer in such matters. Hence, the information requested by the petitioner can be accessed from the gas agency and provided to the petitioner. Section 2(1) of RTI Act clearly defines "information" - "information includes the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any other law for time being in force." Hence the information requested can be accessed by the District Supply Officer from TR Gas Agencies, Thalassery.'
'Therefore the Commissioner order that the information requested by the petitioner should be accessed from the TR Gas Agency, Thalassery and provide the same to the petitioner within twenty days of receipt of this order.'
According to the petitioner, by Ext.P8 order the rights of the petitioner are affected and is hit by section 7(9) of the RTI Act and the order is passed without hearing him and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respective standing counsel for respondents 1 and 5, the learned Government Pleader for the second respondent and the learned counsel for the other respondents.
Sri.M Ajay, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent took me through the provisions of the RTI Act and the decisions of this Court passed under section 2(f) and section 6(3) of the Act, however, fairly submitted that Ext. P8 order was passed without hearing the petitioner.
Therefore, Ext.P8 order is set aside being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The first respondent is directed to issue notice and hear the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 and any person or authority whom the SIC deems appropriate and pass fresh orders on C.P No.1140(5)/2009/SIC, in accordance with law. The parties are free to raise all factual and legal contentions including question regarding jurisdiction before the SIC. Fresh orders as above shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.