Disposed

A.Rajanayagam, v. the Public Information Officer

Madras HC27 Feb 2017WP(MD)/911/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an Information Commission order and directing the PIO to provide eight documents. Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to personally inspect relevant files with an officer, restrict requests to necessary documents, and obtain photostats after payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to inspect files in person, restrict requests to necessary documents based on discussion, and obtain photostats after payment within eight weeks.

A.Rajanayagam, Vs the Public Information Officer — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.02.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.911 of 2011

¶7

A.Rajanayagam ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Public Information Officer, Office of Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education), College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Case No.28788/R4/2010 dated 06.12.2010 on the file of the Tamilnadu Information Commission, Chennai and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondent to provide eight information sought for vide petitioner's application dated 19.07.2010 within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Ravi Chandran

¶12

For Respondent :Mr.V.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Case No.28788/R4/2010 dated 06.12.2010 on the file of the Tamilnadu Information Commission, Chennai and quash the same and consequently directing the Respondent to provide eight information sought for vide petitioner's application dated 19.07.2010, within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

2.Heard both side.

¶16

3.Though the petitioner has come out with the above said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prayer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions that as against the order dated 19.07.2010, the

¶17

¶18

petitioner filed appeal before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, where they have passed order on 06.12.2010, directing the petitioner to approach the Public Information Officer of the Office of the Joint Director, Higher Education to get necessary documents to the extent which are required by the petitioner and therefore, if a direction is given to the respondent, permitting the petitioner to seek only copies of the documents which are actually in need of the petitioner to pursue his legal issues pertaining to get service benefits for him, the petitioner is ready and willing to go before the respondent authority and after having inspection and discussion, the petitioner would restrict only with the actual required documents from the office of the respondent.

¶19

4.Heard Mr.V.Muruganantham, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in this regard.

¶20

5.Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction:

¶21

(I) The petitioner shall approach the respondent by appearing before him in person and once the petitioner approaches the respondent office, an officer in charge dealing with the Public Information files of the respondent office be deputed to have a discussion with the petitioner and after having discussion and perusal of the relevant documents/files, the petitioner shall restrict documents which are actually in need by the petitioner and for those documents alone photostat copies can be taken at the cost of the petitioner and be given to the petitioner.

¶22

(ii) The needful as directed above shall be done by the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

(iii) It is needless to state that once the petitioner approaches the respondent office and after having inspection the petitioner's list of required documents is given, the cost to be immediately paid by the petitioner and on such payment those documents shall be given to the petitioner as indicated above.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶27

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

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

¶31

The Public Information Officer,

¶32

Office of Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education), College Road,

¶33

Chennai – 600 006.

¶34

+1 cc to MR.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate SR.No.11033

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.911 of 2011 27.02.2017

¶36

SMA/SKN-RSK/SAR-2/08.03.2017:3P/3C

¶37

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

A.Rajanayagam, v. the Public Information Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rajanayagam, v. the Public Information Officer

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

P. Mahalingam, Vs the Managing Director

L.Kodikkumar, Vs the Commissioner

T.Suresh Jeyaraj Vs Joint Commissioner

K. Kanthavel Vs the Executive Engineer

P. Murugesan, Vs the District Collector

M/S. Sri Mappillai Vinayagar Vs the Assistant Commissioner