Disposed

Nagappan v. the Head Quarters Deputy

Madras HC23 Feb 2016WP(MD)/3764/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of a pending RTI appeal within the statutory time limit prescribed under the Right to Information Act-2005.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to forward the appeal within two weeks and the 1st respondent to dispose of it on merits within one month.

Nagappan Vs the Head Quarters Deputy — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.02.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.3764 of 2016

¶7

Nagappan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Head-quarters Deputy Tahsildar,

¶10

Karur cum Public Information Officer,

¶11

O/o.the Tahsildar,

¶12

Karur, Karur District.

¶13

2.The Appellate Authority,

¶14

Personal Authority to the Collector (General), Karur District, Karur. ... Respondents

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose the appeal dated 21.06.2015 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent in pursuance of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 24.08.2015 in Na.Ka.S..1/11637/2015-46 on merits in accordance with law within time frame fixed by this Honble Court.

¶17

For petitioner : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar

¶19

Govt.Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 21.06.2015 pending on the file of the second respondent in pursuance of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 24.08.2015 in Na.Ka.S..1/11637/2015-46.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought for certain information under the Right to Information Act-2005. (for short 'the Act'). Though the appeal preferred as early as 21.06.2015 and the time limit is between 30 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 45 days, still, it is pending on the file of the respondents, without any rhyme or reason.

¶23

¶24

The learned Additional Government Pleader would only contend that sufficient time limit may be granted to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner.

¶25

In view of the limited scope of the prayer and especially, the Act prescribes the time limit between 30 and 45 days from the date of such application, the second respondent is directed to forward the appeal, dated 24.08.2015, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal being forwarded by the second respondent, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such appeal received from the second respondent.

¶26

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Head-quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Karur cum Public Information Officer, O/o.the Tahsildar, Karur, Karur District.

¶31

2.The Appellate Authority, Personal Authority to the Collector (General), Karur District, Karur.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam, Advocate Sr.No.10272 ssm AA/NGM-SS/02.03.2016/2p-4c

¶33

W.P(MD).No.3764 of 2016

¶34

23.02.2016

¶35

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

Nagappan v. the Head Quarters Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagappan v. the Head Quarters Deputy

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

D. Lingammal Vs the Commissiioner

Muthusamy, S/O.Duraisamy Vs the Joint Registrar

S.Venkatesan Vs the Superintendent Engineer

A.Padmanabhan, Vs the Senior Manager

Mrs. Rengamani Vs the District Collector

K.Jhon Peter, Vs the Inspector of Police