Disposed

P.Samiappa Gounder v. The State Transport

Madras HC2 Aug 2017WP/19819/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, in a short order, directed the State Information Commissioner to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed under the RTI Act within six weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Information Commissioner to consider and dispose of the 2nd Appeal within six weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

P.Samiappa Gounder Vs The State Transport — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.19819 of 2017
P.Samiappa Gounder ... Petitioner
v.
1.The State Transport Authority - cum-
Transport Commissioner of Tamil Nadu
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai - 600 005
2.The State Information Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Information Commissioner
Thyagaraya Salai, Teynampet
Chennai - 600 018
3.The Regional Transport Authority
Erode Region
Collectorate, Erode
4.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Ltd.
Mettupalayam Road
Coimbatore - 641 043 ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

the 2nd Appeal dated 27.12.2016 filed under section 19(3) 8 of RTC Act of the petitioner with reference to the letter dated 17.03.2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanabhan For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Government Pleader - for R1 to R3

¶11

O R D E R Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider his 2nd Appeal dated 27.12.2016 filed under section 19(3)8 of Right to Information Act, 2005, within a time frame.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶13

that though the petitioner has filed the 2nd Appeal as early as 27.12.2016, the same has not yet been disposed of by the 2nd respondent.

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader,

¶17

appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's 2nd appeal and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after giving notice to

¶18

all the interested parties.

¶19

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on

¶20

either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's 2nd Appeal dated 27.12.2016 and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Index : Yes/No

¶23

Note: Issue order copy by 07.08.2017

¶24

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

¶28

1.The State Transport Authority - cum-
Transport Commissioner of Tamil Nadu
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai - 600 005
2.The State Information Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Information Commissioner
Thyagaraya Salai, Teynampet
Chennai - 600 018
3.The Regional Transport Authority
Erode Region
Collectorate, Erode
4.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Ltd.
Mettupalayam Road
Coimbatore - 641 043

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.DURAISWAMY, J.

W.P.No.19819 of 2017
02.08.2017

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.Samiappa Gounder v. The State Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Samiappa Gounder v. The State Transport

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

Mr.M.Baskaran, Vs The Chairman

Murali, Vs The Inspector General of

India Silk House P.Ltd., Vs The Member Secretary

M/S.Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt. Vs the Principal Conservator of

A.Irudhayaraj, Vs The District Collector

Ramesh, Vs The Deputy Superintendent of