Disposed

M/s.Vijay Gowtham Engineering Works v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Dec 2018WP/34323/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a notice under Section 11(1) of the Right to Information Act accepting a third party's opinion is not final and challengeable. Petitioner's objections under Section 11(2) must be considered by authorities, who shall then pass a binding order under Section 11(3) before furnishing information.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's objections under Section 11(2) and pass an order under Section 11(3) before furnishing any information to the third party.

M/s.Vijay Gowtham Engineering Works Vs The Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 34323 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Vijay Gowtham Engineering Works, rep. by its Partner G.Ravi, No.211/A, RS Road, Reddypalayam, Athipattu, Chennai-600 120. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 2. The Superintending Engineer/ Public Information Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Bus Route Roads Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Solid Waste Management Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

¶7

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

¶8

The Finance Adviser, Finance Management Unit, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from furnishing or inspecting the documents mentioned in the letter in S.W.D.C.No.B3/4161-27, 62 & 63/2017 dated 19.11.2018 on the file of 2^nd respondent with regard to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act to any other third party.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Madhan For Respondents : Mrs. Karthikaa Ashok Standing Counsel

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed forbearing the respondents from furnishing the information sought for by the third party pursuant to a notice issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Information Act (hereinafter called as "Act")

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record carefully.

¶14

It is only a notice under Section 11(1) of the Act, asking for opinion of the petitioner, and pursuant to the notice, under Section 11(2) of the Act, the petitioner has submitted his objections. Now, the authorities shall pass order under Section 11(3) of the Act, regarding the furnishing of information as required by the third party after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can prefer appeal under Section 19 of the Act. It is only a notice issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, at this stage, the petitioner cannot challenge the same. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition.

¶15

However, now the petitioner has submitted his objection under Section 11(2) of the Act, and the authorities concerned are directed to consider the petitioner's objection and pass suitable orders on merits under Section 11(3) of Act, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Till the order is passed, the respondents are directed not to furnish any information to third parties.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶20

//True copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

rpp

¶23

¶24

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 2. The Superintending Engineer/ Public Information Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Bus Route Roads Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Solid Waste Management Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 6. The Finance Adviser, Finance Management Unit, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

¶25

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

¶26

+1cc to Mr.K.Madhan, Advocate SR.No.89549

¶27

+1cc to Ms.Karthikaa Ashok, Advocate SR.No.89795

¶28

W.P. 34323 of 2018

¶29

SPD(CO) GMY(05/02/2019)

¶30

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

M/s.Vijay Gowtham Engineering Works v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Vijay Gowtham Engineering Works v. The Commissioner

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

R.Ravi, Vs The Director of Town

Indira Gangadharan, Vs The Chairman / Registrar-In-

Smt.Mumtaj Begam Vs The Government of Puducherry

C.Selvaraj Vs The Association of

Sri Sivaraman and Co. Vs The Commissioner

D.Ravikumar Vs The Commissioner