JUDGMENT : The State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority have filed this Revision Petition challenging Ext.P8 order of the State Information Commission. 2. The first respondent filed an application under the Right to Information Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 9.8.2010 before the first petitioner seeking certain information. The first petitioner directed the first respondent to remit Rs.1,184/- and to produce the original challan to get the information. The first respondent remitted the amount and produced the challan whereby the information regarding question Nos.5 to 7 was given. Since the information requested for questions Nos.1 to 4 was not provided, the first respondent submitted an appeal before the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner, by Ext.P7 letter informed the first respondent that the information sought ought not have been given by the first petitioner and since the information regarding question Nos.5 to 7 has already been provided, the appeal cannot be entertained. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed the 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission. After giving notice and hearing the parties concerned, the Commission passed Ext.P8 order wherein it was categorically found that the first petitioner ought to have given all the information sought for in the application. Since the information regarding question Nos.5 to 7 was already given, the information requested in questions Nos.1 to 4 should be provided free of cost. In Ext.P8(2) , it was also ordered to issue show-cause notice to the first petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ext.P8(1) show cause notice was issued on 20.6.2012 granting 7 days to explain the reasons mentioned against him. 3. At this point of time, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners and this Court while admitting the case to files granted an interim stay of further proceedings in Ext.P8 order. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent. It is stated that the Writ Petition is filed with distorted facts. He produced Ext.R-1(a) to R-1(x) to contend that his application is genuine and rejected without any valid reason. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Preetha K K for the petitioners, learned counsel Shri V A Muhammed for the first respondent and learned standing counsel Shri.M Ajay for the 2nd respondent. 6. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Preetha K K for the petitioners, learned counsel Shri V A Muhammed for the first respondent and learned standing counsel Shri.M Ajay for the 2nd respondent. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8 is issued without understanding the scope of the provisions in the Act as the Public Information Officer has the right to get the genuineness and authenticity of the person applying for the information. Even then, the first petitioner has given information sought in the application in respect of questions Nos.5 to 7, without noting the fact that information sought by an organisation cannot be provided under Section 3 of the Act. The 2nd petitioner being the Appellate Authority, considered the appeal filed by the first respondent and issued Ext.P7 legally stating that the information sought ought not to have given by the first petitioner and since the information have already been given, the appeal has been rightly rejected. 7. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that under Section 3 of the Act, if any citizen files an application, subject to the provisions of the Act, all citizens have the right to information. 8. Section 6 requires that a person, who desires to obtain any information, make a request in writing or through electronic media, accompanying such fees as may be prescribed and once such request is received the Information Officer, as expeditiously as possible, within 30 days from the date of receipt, either provide the information on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed or reject the request for the reasons specified under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. 9. The first petitioner on receipt of the application has directed the first respondent to remit the fee required and on receipt of the challan evidencing the payment of the fee, has given information requested for questions 5 to 7. But the 2nd petitioner has taken a stand that the information sought ought not to have been given as it violates Section 3 of the Act. 10. In the second appeal filed by the first respondent against the denial of the information by the 2nd petitioner, the contention raised is that the Information Officer ought to have granted information sought in questions Nos.1 to 4 and that deliberately the petitioners have denied the information sought. 10. In the second appeal filed by the first respondent against the denial of the information by the 2nd petitioner, the contention raised is that the Information Officer ought to have granted information sought in questions Nos.1 to 4 and that deliberately the petitioners have denied the information sought. The 2nd respondent on receipt of the 2nd appeal, issued notice to the 1st respondent and directed the State Kudumbasree Mission to file an affidavit. In obedience to the said direction, an affidavit was filed by the State Kudumbasree Mission. Before the Commission, it was also contended that the 1st respondent used forged letterhead and seal and filing applications one after the other and all information sought was rightly given by the Information Officer. The information sought in the application dated 9.8.2010 was provided by the first petitioner without adverting that the same was not filed by an Indian citizen and filed by an Association on a forged letterhead. The Commission, thereafter, hearing both the parties and perusing the affidavit filed, came to the conclusion that the State Public Information officer ought to have given the information requested in questions Nos.1 to 4 and directed the Information Officer to provide the information sought for in question Nos.1 to 4 free of cost, since the time limit prescribed under the Act for giving information has already elapsed. It was also decided to issue show cause notice to initiate proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed by the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority. 11. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:- “3. Right to information.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” While Section 6 of the Act, reads thus:- “6. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed by the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority. 11. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:- “3. Right to information.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” While Section 6 of the Act, reads thus:- “6. Request for obtaining information.—(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to— (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. (2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. (3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,— (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.” 12. Though Section 3 of the Act states that all citizens have the right to information, Section 6 of the Act stipulates that a person who desires to obtain any information under the Act shall make a request. Though Section 3 of the Act states that all citizens have the right to information, Section 6 of the Act stipulates that a person who desires to obtain any information under the Act shall make a request. So, Section 6 of the Act is in a sense more wider in its ambit than Section 3 of the Act. The above view has also been held in a decision reported in Chief Information Commissioner and another v. State of Manipur and another [2012 SC 864]. 13. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the information sought by the first respondent claiming to be a member secretary of the Community Development Society, Kudumbasree Moorkkanad panchayath and hence, the Act does not stipulate in furnishing information sought by an Association through its member secretary. It was also contended that though Sections 3 and 6(1) of the Act state that a person who desires to obtain information under the Act shall request in writing, the locus standi or the applicant's information need to be looked at into by the State Public Information Officer. The Information Officer is not liable for providing information sought by the first respondent misrepresenting or misusing the official position. The direction issued by the State Information Commission is totally against the spirit and intent of the Act. The 2nd respondent has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing Ext.P8. 14. The counsel for the 2nd respondents points out that a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in W.A. No.2815 of 2009 dated 10.12.2009 has held that the State Public Information Officer cannot go into identity or authenticity of the person applying or to verify whether he is an Indian citizen or not. The Division Bench in paragraph No.6 has held as follows: “6. In the present case, the grounds raised by the appellant for not furnishing the information, like seeking information or confirmation about the authenticity of the person applying, verifying whether he is an Indian citizen or not, whether his application should be on the printed letterhead of the company, etc. cannot be said to be relevant reasons for refusal or denial of the information sought. This denial is permitted only if the case and information sought falls under the exemptions as provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. cannot be said to be relevant reasons for refusal or denial of the information sought. This denial is permitted only if the case and information sought falls under the exemptions as provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Beyond these exemptions, the State Public Information Officer cannot either delay in giving the information or deny such furnishing of information. It is to be noted that even though the information was sought as long back as in August, 2008, necessary information was furnished only in March, 2009, that too by the successor of the appellant herein. This indicates that, prima facie, there was no obstruction for furnishing such information and hence we find that the State Commission as well as the learned Single Judge were justified in imposing the penalty which needs, in our view, no interference.” 15. Thus, it has been held that the Public Information Officer cannot verify the authenticity of the applicant making the application or go into the veracity of the letterhead or seal. The denial is permitted only under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The Information Officer is bound to furnish the information as sought, if it is not violative of Sections 6, 8 and 9 of the Act. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the information sought by the first respondent is mis-using the letterhead and seal. The petitioners does not have a case that he is not an Indian citizen as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act specifically states that a person who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request. So, the Information Officer rightly furnished information regarding question Nos.5 to 7. The first Appellate Authority i.e., the 2nd petitioner held that the information ought not to have been given since the information sought is not by an individual but by an association through an office bearer. The commission found that the finding of the First Appellate authority is perverse and against the spirit of the Act. 16. Ext.P8 directs that show cause notice to be issued to the State Public Information Officer and directs furnishing of information regarding question nos.1 to 4. Based on the said order dated 14.5.2012 Ext.P8(1) show cause notice was issued on 20.6.2012. 16. Ext.P8 directs that show cause notice to be issued to the State Public Information Officer and directs furnishing of information regarding question nos.1 to 4. Based on the said order dated 14.5.2012 Ext.P8(1) show cause notice was issued on 20.6.2012. Since this court has already granted a stay of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners did not file a reply to the show cause notice. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that Ext.P8 being a show cause notice to initiate proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act, the petitioners should be given liberty to file their respective objections and the Commission has to take a final decision taking into consideration of the objections, if any filed by the petitioners. In view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioners to file objections/reply to the show cause notice dated 20.6.2012 within one month from today. If the petitioners file such objection/reply, the 2nd respondent shall, after hearing the petitioners and the first respondent, come to a logical conclusion within 3 months thereafter. The 2nd respondent shall independently consider with an open mind, whether the denial of information was deliberate so as to invoke Section 20(1) of the Act to impose a penalty. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.