In a consent case, the Madurai Bench directed the Tamil Nadu State Information Commissioner to consider a pending representation and pass orders within twelve weeks.
Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2017 and take further action within twelve weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)No.8064 of 2018
A.Kanagaraj : Petitioner
Vs.
The Tamil Nadu State Information Commissioner, O/o. The State Information Commission,
No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Near Aalaiamman Kovil, Teynampettai, Chennai : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2017 seeking to pass final order in Anani No.SA 1818/A/2016 on the file of respondent and pass necessary orders on merits and in accordance with law within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Senthil
O R D E R
By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 19.09.2017 to pass final orders in the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent till date and therefore, has filed the present writ petition.
3.This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or other. Non consideration of the same would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount to dereliction of their ordinary duties of their office and as such this Court would be justified in invoking its powers
2
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.
4.In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2017 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
Myr
AE/JC/SAR4/07.05.2018/2P/2C
W.P.(MD)No.8064 of 2018 13.04.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Respondent Information Commissioner failed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding a second appeal within a reasonable time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Kanagaraj
The Tamil Nadu State Information Commissioner
M.S. RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
