← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/21588/2015dismissed

Mubarak v. The District Collector, Malappuram

2015-07-17Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2015/26TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21588 of 2015 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- MUBARAK, S/O. USMAN, MAVUNGAL HOUSE, VELLIMUTTAM, KURUMBALANGODE. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR.

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.

2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MAJERI. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHUKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 329.

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

WP(C).No. 21588 of 2015 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1.

TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 01-09-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P2.

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-04-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P3.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT, DATED 02-07-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P(C). No.21588 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks a direction that, Ext.P3 application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [for brevity, the Act of 2005] may be expedited. If default is committed under the provisions of the Act of 2005, the petitioner has adequate remedies under the said Act itself.

The writ petition would stand dismissed, leaving open such remedies.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp