Disposed

Sri Sivaraman and Co. v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Dec 2018WP/34342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act inviting opinion is not challengeable in writ. However, directing authorities to consider objections before passing an order, an interim stay was granted on furnishing information to the third party.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider objections under Section 11(3) before furnishing information; interim stay on disclosure granted.

Sri Sivaraman and Co. 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 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.34342, 34343 & 34344 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Sri Sivaram & Co., rep. by its Partner Chidambaram, No.8, Municipal Complex, Opp. Balu Bunk, Sathy Main Road, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. ... Petitioner in all the petitions

¶7

Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003. ... First Respondent in all the Petitions 2. The Public Information Officer, Storm Water Drain Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003. ... 2nd Respondent in WP Nos.34342 & 34343 of 2018 3. The Public Information Officer, Bus Route Roads Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003. ... 2nd Respondent in WP No.34344/2018

¶8

PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from furnishing or inspecting the documents mentioned in the letter in S.W.D.C.No.B3/4161-29/2017, S.W.D.C.No.B3/4161-21/2017 and B.R.R.C.No.5127/2018 dated

¶9

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

¶10

19.11.2018 respectively on the file of the 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.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Kumar

¶12

These writ petitions have 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, and pursuant to the notice, under Section 11(2) of the Act, the petitioners have submitted their 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 petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they 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 petitioners cannot challenge the same. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petitions.

¶15

However, now the petitioners submitted their objections under Section 11(2) of the Act, and the authorities concerned are directed to consider the petitioners' objection and pass suitable orders on merits under Section 11(3) of Act, after giving opportunity to the petitioners. 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, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Public Information Officer,
Storm Water Drain Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Public Information Officer,
Bus Route Roads Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.
+4 cc's to Mr.C.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.Nos.89843,89844
+1 cc to Mrs.Karthika Ashok, Advocate SR.No.89792
W.P.Nos.34342, 34343 &
34344 of 2018
RK(CO)
CSL/20.02.2019

¶19

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

Sri Sivaraman and Co. v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sivaraman and Co. 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

D.Ravikumar Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Vijay Gowtham Engineering Works Vs The Commissioner