Disposed

Sankar Ambedkar, v. the Chief Information

Madras HC18 Apr 2017WP(MD)/3284/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing the First Respondent to initiate an inquiry into the Public Information Officer's action. The Court noted that action had already been initiated and the inquiry fixed, disposing of the petition with a direction to complete the inquiry within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the First Respondent to complete the inquiry within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy.

Sankar Ambedkar, Vs the Chief Information — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3284 of 2017

Sankar Ambedkar

..Petitioner

1.The Chief Information Commissioner Cum Second Appellate Authority, No.2, Thiyagaraya Salai, Near to Alaiamman Kovil, Thenampet, Chennai – 600 018. 2.The First Appellate Authority Cum Block Development Officer, Union Office, Manamadurai, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Public Information Officer Cum Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Office, Mangulam, Mangulam, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against the Respondent No.3 for providing information to the petitioner based on the application dated 14.11.2015 in the light of order passed by the 1^st Respondent vide proceedings in Aanai No: SA. 1573/B/2016 dated 29.06.2016 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Karunanidhi

¶13

For 1^st Respondent :Mr.K.K.Senthil

¶14

For Respondents 2 & 3 :Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against the 3^rd respondent for providing information to the petitioner based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the application dated 14.11.2015, in the light of order passed by the 1^st Respondent vide proceedings in Aanai No: SA. 1573/B/2016 dated 29.06.2016 within a time frame.

¶16

¶17

2.Heard Mr.R.Karunanidhi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.K.Senthil, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶18

3.Mr.K.K.Senthil, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that action would be initiated for providing information as sought for by the petitioner in his application dated 14.11.2015. In fact the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has circulated a letter issued by the first respondent dated 07.03.2017, stating that the Commission has ordered conducting of enquiry as requested by the petitioner. The said communication would also state that the actual date of enquiry will be intimated to the petitioner as well as the Public Information Officer concerned after fixing the date of enquiry.

¶19

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that time may be fixed for completion of the enquiry.

¶20

5.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Petition and therefore, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Chief Information Commissioner

¶27

Cum Second Appellate Authority,

¶28

No.2, Thiyagaraya Salai, Near to Alaiamman Kovil,

¶29

Thenampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶30

2.The First Appellate Authority

¶31

Cum Block Development Officer, Union Office, Manamadurai, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶32

3.The Public Information Officer Cum Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Office, Mangulam, Mangulam,

¶33

Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶34

+One cc to Mr.R.Karunanidhi, Advocate, SR.No.52374

¶35

+One cc to Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Advocate, SR.No.52371 +One cc to Mr.K.K.Senthil, Advocate, SR.No.52661 sj

¶36

RL/7C/2P/MR/SAR2/27.4.2017

¶37

W.P(MD)No.3284 of 2017

¶38

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

¶39

18.04.2017

Sankar Ambedkar, v. the Chief Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar Ambedkar, v. the Chief Information

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

Dr.J.Thanga Rani Jerobiah Vs the Regional Manager

P.Saranya Vs the Branch Manager

P.a.Andichamy Vs the Tahsildar

Alagar, Vs the District Collector

M.Thiagarajan, Vs the Passport Issuing Authority

Bala Rathinakumar, Vs the Commissioner