Petitioner sought mandamus under Article 226 for information and penalty under RTI Act. Second appeal was returned for compliance. Court disposed of petition granting liberty to re-presentation after compliance without expressing view on the claim.
Liberty granted to petitioner to re-present the appeal after effecting compliance; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.12.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.5486 of 2015
S.Sivalingam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner, Tamilnadu State Information Commission, New No.378, Anna Salai, Thenampettai,
Chennai-600 018.
2.Public Information Appellate Authority/ The assistant Director, Rural Development (Panchayat), 2nd Floor, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Public Information Officer/ Deputy Block development Officer, Mandapam Panchayat Union, Uchipuli
Ramanathapuram Taluk & district.
4.N.Manoranjitham President,
Thanmarikulam Village Panchayat, Irattaiyurani Post, Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondents,
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to furnish information sought for by the petitioner in his petition dated 13.03.2014 and further directing the respondents 2 and 3 to pay a penalty of Rs. 250(Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day from 13.03.2014 till the date of furnishing information in consonance with section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.N.Govardhanan For R1 : Mr. K.K.Senthil For R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.Muruganandam ******
2
O R D E R
Though this writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner under RTI Act based on his application dated 13.03.2014, it appears that the second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent came to be returned on 28.04.2015 for effecting certain compliances.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to re-present the appeal, after effecting the compliance.
3.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of without expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner only by granting liberty to the petitioner represent the appeal to the first respondent, after effecting compliance. If there is any delay in re-presenting the same, such delay need not be taken into consideration by the first respondent. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AS)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To,
Ramanathapuram Taluk & district.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JS/EMJMP/12.01.2017/2P-6C
W.P(MD)No.5486 of 2015 14.12.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be disposed of granting liberty to re-presentation after compliance without expressing a view on the claim.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Sivalingam
The Commissioner, Tamilnadu State Information Commission
Public Information Appellate Authority / The assistant Director, Rural Development
The Public Information Officer / Deputy Block development Officer
K. Ravichandrababu
Justice K. Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
