JUDGMENT : Upon the bedrock of certain singular facts narrated by the petitioner in this writ petition, it occurs to me that the cardinal question which requires an answer, for the resolution of the factual controversy in this writ petition, is whether there is not a statutorily implied, if not mandated, presumption of synergy between the requirements under the Right to Information Act (for short, 'the RTI Act') and the prescriptions under the Kerala Destruction of Records Act, 1961, when a Public Authority under the RTI Act declines information on the sole ground that the files, which would have contained such information, had been destroyed and thus pleads incapacitation from providing it. 2. The adjunct issue is the obligation of the Authorities under the RTI Act, especially the State Information Commission (herein after referred to as the SIC for short) under it, to evaluate, adjudicate and ascertain if such files could have been legally destroyed by the Public Authority, as stated by them; and whether, if such destruction has been done contrary to law, warranting further action under the RTI Act against such Authority. 3. The cause for the above question to have arisen in this case will become limpid when the most vital facts are seen, which I will record presently. 4. The petitioner is stated to have approached the Public 4th Information Officer of the respondent-Grama Panchayath seeking certain information regarding licenses issued to a firm by name “M/s. Trichur Tyres” and in particular with respect to the licenses issued to them from the year 2008-2009 onwards. 5. The petitioner alleges that the information Officer of the Panchayath, however, did not give full information as sought for by him and that certain information was kept away without any valid reason; and therefore, that he approached the hierarchy of Authorities under the RTI Act finally leading to Ext.P7 order of the State Information Commission, as per which the Public Information Officer (PIO for short), of the Panchayath was directed to allow full information to the petitioner. 6. 6. The petitioner prays that Exhibit-P7 order be directed to be implemented and he adds that since no action was taken on that order he made a further application, namely Ext.P9, which again was not acceded to by the PIO of the Panchayath, which constrained him to invoke further remedies under the provisions of the RTI Act, finally culminating in Ext.P14 order of the State Information Commission. 7. The petitioner says that the State Information Commission unfortunately rejected his appeal, finding that the information sought for by him is stated to have been destroyed by the Panchayath and therefore, that it is not possible to give him the said information. 8. The petitioner asserts that the State Information Commission has erred in concluding so because, according to him, it is not merely sufficient for the said Authority to merely record that the information has been destroyed but that it is also incumbent upon them to have verified whether the Panchayath was under the legal duty to maintain such information and whether destruction of the relevant documents, as is asserted by them, would amount to violation of the provisions of the Kerala Destruction of Records Act, 1961 and such other applicable executive instructions and orders under it, relating to maintenance of such information, thereby leading to an inference that the information has been deliberately kept away from him by illegally destroying the same. 9. I have heard Sri. Harish Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel appearing for the third and fourth respondents; Sri. M.Ajay, learned standing counsel appearing for the State Information Commission and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 2-Deputy Director of Panchayaths. 10. Sri. K.B. Gangesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4, commences his submissions, in refutation of the contentions of the petitioner, by saying that the PIO of the Panchayath has not done anything wrong, as is alleged by the petitioner and that he has given him every information possible. Sri. Gangesh then says that the Unit in question, namely M/s. Trichur Tyres, has now shut down and therefore, that no practical purpose will be served by pursuing this litigation to obtain information regarding that Unit, particularly when the Panchayath had destroyed the files relating to it, they being very old. Sri. Gangesh then says that the Unit in question, namely M/s. Trichur Tyres, has now shut down and therefore, that no practical purpose will be served by pursuing this litigation to obtain information regarding that Unit, particularly when the Panchayath had destroyed the files relating to it, they being very old. He further says that the State Information Commission has, in fact, considered all these aspects in great detail and has issued Ext.P14 correctly holding that the Panchayath has acted within the parameters of law. 11. Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-State Information Commission, says that the primary statutory duty of his client is to ensure that full information is given to an applicant by the concerned Public Information Officers under the RTI Act. He submits that the State Information Commission had issued Ext.P14 order specifically noting that all available information had been given to the petitioner; but that certain other information could not be so given because the relevant files had been destroyed. He says, pointing to Ext.P7, that the State Information Commission had, on an earlier occasion, issued express directions to respondents 3 and 4 to make available all information to the petitioner and that the said Authorities appear to have provided all such information, save those which had already been destroyed. 12. On a consideration of the afore circumstances and in particular on a close examination of Ext.P14 order of the first respondent State Information Commission, I am not sure if they have implicitly complied with the statutory obligations vested upon them by the RTI Act because, in my view, the Act enjoins on them not merely a staunch commitment to make available information, but also to ascertain whether such information ought to have been maintained by the Authorities, in terms of the provisions of the said Act and in particular Section 4 thereof. It is not, in my first opinion, sufficient for the PIO of a Public Authority, to merely say that the information is not available because the relevant records had been destroyed, without first establishing that the said Institution could have destroyed such information in terms of law; otherwise the entire purport of the RTI Act could be easily rendered superfluous and indolent, since any Information Officer can take a defence that they have destroyed the files relating to that information and consequentially incapacitated from providing the same to the applicant. 13. I am of the certain view that before the State Information Commission could have approved the stand of the concerned PIO, that the relevant files containing the information applied for had been destroyed, it was obligated on them to first ascertain whether such information/files could have been destroyed as per law or whether it is only a façade put up by the said Institution solely to deny the information sought for. 14. In the case at hand, since Ext.P14 has concededly not delved into this angle; and since it merely accepts the version of respondents 3 and 4 that the concerned files have been destroyed, but without entering into an evaluation whether those files were obligated to be maintained by the Panchayath in terms of law for a period of 25 years, as is asserted by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the State Information Commission must re-consider that order in terms of the mandate of law in this regard. 15. I am also cognizant of the specific assertion of the petitioner that in spite of Exts.P7 and P14 orders of the State Information Commission, all necessary information had not been made available to the petitioner, though the Panchayath asserts to the contrary. This disputation is, therefore, also one which should gain the attention of the State Information Commission. 16. In the afore circumstances, though I do not propose to set aside Ext.P14, or to state upon its contents affirmatively, I deem it appropriate to direct the State Information Commission to re-consider these vital issues and decide whether any modification to Ext.P14 then becomes necessary. 17. 16. In the afore circumstances, though I do not propose to set aside Ext.P14, or to state upon its contents affirmatively, I deem it appropriate to direct the State Information Commission to re-consider these vital issues and decide whether any modification to Ext.P14 then becomes necessary. 17. I make it clear that the area of consideration of the State Information Commission will cover all the relevant issues; but in particular, the ones that I have recorded above, and it would hrequire of them to decide whether the stand of the Panchayath, that they have destroyed the files, can be found to be tenable; and if not, as to the measures and steps to be taken as per law against the said Authority. 18. The exercise as ordered herein shall be completed by the State Information Commission as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; after offering all the parties opportunity, as is warranted under the RTI Act, to place on record their versions and respective stand, on law and on facts. This writ petition is thus ordered.