Dismissed

Elephant G.Rajendran, v. the Registrar General

Madras HC9 Sept 2014WP/34805/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition seeking RTI information about the Madras Bar Association from the High Court Registry. The Court held that the Registry cannot be compelled to collect information from a third party under the RTI Act and dismissed the PIL angle, closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed and no direction was issued to the respondents.

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs the Registrar General — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

W.P.No.34805 of 2012

¶6

Elephant G.Rajendran .. Petitioner vs 1.The Registrar General High Court of Madras, High Court, Chennai. 2.Deputy Registrar Right to Information, High Court, Chennai. 3.The Secretary Madras Bar Association High Court, Chennai. ..Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to furnish the reply to all queries of the petitioner with documents stated in his petition dated 18.01.2012.

¶8

For Petitioner .. Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran (Party-in-person)

¶9

For Respondents.. Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi for RR1 & 2

¶10

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶11

The petitioner, an advocate, seeks some clarification and information about the Madras Bar Association.

¶12

2.From the submissions, it appears that he has grievance qua the functioning of this Association. It is his say that the information was sought about the Madras Bar Association from the Registry of the High Court under the R.T.I. Act. It is equally admitted that apparently no information was forthcoming from the Madras Bar Association. In the absence of information available with the Registry of the High Court, the matter was closed.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

3.The petitioner, appearing in person, states that it is the bounden duty of the Registry to obtain information from the Madras Bar Association. In our view, the very purpose of the R.T.I. Act is transparency and disclosure of information, but then, that is qua information which is available with the High Court. The provisions of the Act cannot be invoked seeking to collect information from third parties which is not available and to hand over the same. Despite that, it is not as if the Registry did not seek the information, but in the absence of any information forthcoming, the matter was closed.

¶15

4.We are of the view that in such a situation, whatever be the remedies of the petitioner, it certainly cannot be through Public Interest Litigation in this behalf.

¶16

5.We close the petition with the hope that the Bar members
are able to work out their differences by sitting together rather
than litigating inter se.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sra
To
1.The Registrar General
High Court of Madras,
High Court, Chennai.
2.Deputy Registrar
Right to Information,
High Court, Chennai.
3.The Secretary
Madras Bar Association
High Court, Chennai.
4. The Section Officer
Legal Cell,High Court, Madras
2 ccs to Mr.Elephant G. Rajendiran, Advocate, Sr. 43013
W.P.No.34805 of 2012
KU (CO)
kk 17/9

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Elephant G.Rajendran, v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elephant G.Rajendran, v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidhya Sagar Charitable Trust Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tidel Park Coimbatore Ltd. Vs the Consolidated Construction

J.Venkatesh Kumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.M.Santhanagopalan, Vs the Union of India

C.R.Baskaran Vs the Ministry of Road Transport

Taken-Up-Pil Vs the Principal Secretary to