Disposed

P.Valayapathi, v. the Chief Information

Madras HC14 Jun 2018WP(MD)/12742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Chief Information Commissioner of Tamil Nadu to dispose of a pending second appeal filed by the petitioner within three months, without adjudicating on the merits of the Right to Information case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Information Commissioner to dispose of the pending second appeal within three months.

P.Valayapathi, Vs the Chief Information — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.06.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.12742 of 2018

P.Valayapathi

: Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Information Commissioner of Tamil Nadu, No.89, Dr.Alagappa Road, Purasaiwalkam,

¶9

Chennai-84.

¶10

The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Milyapur,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police/ Public Information Officer, Thanjavur District. : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to furnish information relating to Jegananathan (7033) Sub Inspector of Police worked at the Vallam Police Station from 04.03.2014 to 23.03.2014 by disposing the second appeal dated 20.03.2018 pending on the file of the first respondent within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karnan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.K.Senthil For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.S.Nagarajan, Special Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has made a petition under the Right to Information Act to the third respondent. Since information was not provided, he filed an appeal to the Director General of Police, the second respondent herein. Even then, he did not get any information. That is why, he filed an appeal before the first respondent. Since the same has not been considered so far, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Writ Petition seeking disposal of his appeal, within the time stipulated by this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court.

¶17

¶18

Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.S.Nagarajan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the second and third respondents.

¶19

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final

¶20

disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶21

Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, a direction is issued to the first respondent to dispose of the second appeal filed by the petitioner dated 20.03.2018, if any pending, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Chief Information Commissioner of Tamil Nadu, No.89, Dr.Alagappa Road, Purasaiwalkam,

¶29

Chennai-84.

¶30

The Superintendent of Police/

¶31

Public Information Officer,

¶32

Thanjavur District.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.G.Karnan, Advocate Sr.No.68343

¶34

+1cc to Mr.K.K.Senthil, Advocate Sr.No.68435 Sml

¶35

MK/SB/SAR 2/22.06.2018/2P/5C

¶36

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.12742 of 2018 Dated: 14.06.2018

¶37

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

P.Valayapathi, v. the Chief Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Valayapathi, 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

M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S. Industrial Mineral Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S.Industrial Mineral Vs the Commissioner of Customs

V.Neethivelan Vs the District Collector

P.Rajalingam Vs the District Collector

Tmt.T.Deva Anugragha Vs the Regional Transport Officer