Antony Dominic, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C). 25345/09, who is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appellant was the Works Manager of the Kozhikode Regional Workshop of the K.S.R.T.C. during the period from 5.9.2007 to 2.9.2008. He succeeded the third respondent in that post, who worked for the period from 29.6.2007 to 4.9.2007. The 4th respondent took over from the appellant and was the Works Manager for the period from 3.9.2008 to 7.11.2008.
3. While the third respondent was holding the post of Works Manager, the second respondent made an application under section 6 of the Right to Information Act seeking the details of the recoveries made from the salary of one Vishnu Nambeesan, towards the loan availed of by him from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. The details sought for were not furnished and therefore, in view of the provisions contained in section 7(2) of the Act, it was deemed that the application was rejected on 30.7.2007 when 30 days' period specified in the Act for giving reply expired.
4. Without availing of the appellate remedy as provided under section 19 of the Act, the second respondent filed Ext.P1(2) complaint dated 17.8.2007 before the first respondent purportedly under section 18 of the Act. The first respondent forwarded the complaint to the appellant under cover of Ext.P1 dated 8.1.2008 and called for a report in the matter. Ext.P2 is the reply filed by the appellant. On receipt of the reply, Ext.P3 notice was issued on 13.4.2009, by which, the first respondent sought for explanation from the appellant as to why action shall not be taken against him under section 20(1). Ext.P4 is the explanation submitted thereof.
5. Finally, Ext.P5 order was issued, levying a penalty of `15,000/- on the appellant and also a penalty of `5,000/- each on respondents 3 and 4. It is this order which was challenged in the writ petition. Learned single Judge upheld the order of the first respondent and challenging the said judgment, this appeal is filed.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and have considered the submissions made.
7. The only question that arises is whether the first respondent could have validly entertained Ext.P1 and passed Ext.P5 order levying penalty as provided under section 20(1) of the Act. The contention raised by the appellant is that when application made for information as provided under section 6 of the Act is rejected, either expressly or otherwise, the remedy available to the applicant is to file an appeal as provided under section 19 of the Act and that a further complaint under section 18 to the first respondent is not maintainable. Therefore, according to him, the first respondent could not have entertained Ext.P1(2) application, nor could he have levied penalty as per Ext.P5.
8. Having considered the submissions made, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our view, this contention is fully supported by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur [AIR 2012 SC 864], where, in a similar situation, the Apex Court held that the remedy of an applicant like the second respondent is to invoke appellate remedy. It was also held that sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different remedies. According to the Apex Court, one cannot be a substitute for the other.
9. As a necessary consequence, Ext.P5 order has to be set aside. However, since the order of the first respondent is invalidated on the technical ground of maintainability of Ext.P1, we feel that ends of justice require that the second respondent should be permitted to file an appeal as provided under section 19 of the Act. Therefore, we direct that if such an appeal is filed by the second respondent within two weeks from today, the first respondent will entertain the same and pass orders thereon on merits, ignoring the delay caused in filing the same.
The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
/True copy/ Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
PS to Judge