M.P.Cheriyakoya v. The Ut O Lakshadweep Rep. By Its Administrator

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/15TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22989 of 2015 (W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- M.P.CHERIYAKOYA, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN HAJI, PURADAM HOUSE, KAVARATTI, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP.

BY ADVS.SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI - 682 555.

2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVARATTI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.

3. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KAVARATTI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.

4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ADMINISTRATION AND PROTOCOL, KAVARATTI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.

BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

WP(C).No. 22989 of 2015 (W) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

-------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DTD.10.3.2015 PETITIONER SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DTD.20.5.2015 PETITIONER RECEIVED A COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DTD.4.6.2015, 3RD RESPONDENT AGAIN SENT A LETTER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DTD.5.6.2015 PETITIONER ALSO RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.5.6.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msv/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.22989 of 2015 - W ====================== Dated this the 6th day of August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of Ext.P1 application, seeking information under Right to Information Act. If at all delay is caused for processing any application under the Right to Information Act, there is a remedy provided under the Act itself, which the petitioner would have to avail.

The writ petition would stand closed, since this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary remedy, when alternate remedy is available.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.