Allowed

Nithyaesh Natraj v. The Central Information

Madras HC7 Dec 2017WP/31387/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions under Article 226 challenging inaction of the Central Information Commission in disposing of second appeals filed under the RTI Act. The court directed the respondent to dispose of all pending second appeals within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Central Information Commission to dispose of the second appeals within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

Nithyaesh Natraj Vs The Central Information — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2017

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.Nos.31387 to 31393 of 2017

¶7

Nithyaesh Natraj ... Petitioner in all W.Ps. Vs The Central Information Commission, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 006. ... Respondent in all W.Ps.

¶8

Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to dispose of the petitioner's respective second appeals filed on 22.01.2017, 24.07.2017, 21.04.2017, 22.01.2017, 31.05.2017, 31.05.2017 and 22.01.2017 under RTI Act within a time frame fixed by this court.

¶9

For petitioner ... Mr.Anand Venkatesh in all W.Ps. for Mr.Narasimha Varman For respondents ... Mr.Venkatasamy Babu in all W.Ps. Standing Panel Counsel

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

Mr.Venkatasamy Babu, learned counsel takes notice for the

¶14

respondent. By consent of both sides, these writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶15

2.In all these writ petitions, the writ petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of his second appeals filed before the respondent under RTI Act within the time fixed by this

¶16

Court.

¶17

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the second appeals filed on 22.01.2017, 24.07.2017, 21.04.2017, 22.01.2017, 31.05.2017, 31.05.2017 and 22.01.2017 have not been disposed of so

¶18

far.

¶19

4.This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in the second appeals, as it

¶20

is for the respondent/Appellate Authority to consider and decide, however, as the limited prayer sought for in these writ petitions, is for disposal of those second appeals, all these writ petitions are disposed of, only with a direction to the respondent to consider those second appeals and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not orders are passed so far. No costs.

¶24

05.12.2017
Speaking/Non Speaking
Index: Yes/No
vri
To
The Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 006.

¶25

K.RAVICHADNRABAABU,J.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

vri

¶29

W.P.Nos.31387 to 31393 of 2017
07.12.2017

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

W.P.No.31387 of 2017

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

Nithyaesh Natraj v. The Central Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithyaesh Natraj v. The Central Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Raja, S/o.krishnasamy, Vs The Divisional Engineer

K.Sampath, Vs District Collector

R.Anbalagan, S/o.G.Raju Vs The Managing Director

Cespdi-Trishe Consortium, Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

Selva Rajendran @ Selvam Vs The Managing Director

A.Saravanan Vs The District Collector