Disposed

R.Kumarasen, S/O.Ulapuraman v. the Tahsildar /

Madras HC13 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4160/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent, a Public Information Officer, to dispose of his representation dated 25.04.2016 regarding an RTI application. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.04.2016 on merits and pass orders within eight weeks.

R.Kumarasen, S/O.Ulapuraman Vs the Tahsildar / — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4160 of 2017

R.Kumarasen

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Tahsildar,

/Public Information Officer, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkotai District.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose my representation dated 25.04.2016, within stipulated time may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr. M.Alagadevan Special Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of his representation dated 25.04.2016.

¶18

2.Mr. M.Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶19

3.By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶20

4.It is stated that the petitioner gave an application to the Public Information Officer, Taluk Office, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, under Right to Information Act, who in turn sent a communication dated 24.03.2016 to the petitioner stating that the file regarding the information sought for by the petitioner is in custody of the respondent and the petitioner may approach the respondent for further progress. It is further seen https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that as per direction of the Public Information Officer, Taluk Office, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, the petitioner

¶21

¶22

preferred an application before the respondent on 25.04.2016, which according to the petitioner, till date, has not been considered. Hence, he has come before this Court with the relief as stated supra.

¶23

Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this writ petition and without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.04.2016 and pass orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, also by hearing any other rival parties, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Tahsildar, Public Information Officer, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkotai District.

¶30

+1cc to M/s. S.AYYANAR PREM KUMAR Advocate in SR. No.14039 +1cc to SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.14412

¶31

SKN

¶32

JS/RR/22.03.2017/2P-4C

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.4160 of 2017 13.03.2017

¶34

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

R.Kumarasen, S/O.Ulapuraman v. the Tahsildar /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kumarasen, S/O.Ulapuraman v. the Tahsildar /

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

K.Maria David, S/O S.Kulanthai Vs the Supdt. of Police

Samathanam, Vs the District Collector

S.M. Waris Mohideen Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Merryston David Scanny Vs the Government of India

The Headmistress Vs the Tamil Nadu Information

M. Merryston David Scanny, Vs the Government of