Disposed

V.Gowthaman v. The Commissioner

Madras HC18 Jan 2019WP/1265/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought injunction against disclosing tender details before the authority passed an order under Section 11(3) of the RTI Act considering petitioner's objections under Section 11(2). Court held that while the initial notice under Section 11(1) was not actionable, it directed authorities to hear petitioner's objections and stay disclosure pending that order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's objections and pass order under Section 11(3) of RTI Act; disclosure of information stayed until order passed.

V.Gowthaman Vs The Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.01.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶4

W.P. 1265 of 2019

¶5

V.Gowthaman,
Partner,
M/s.Macroh Infra Developers,
L4, SICO Industrial Estate,
Nanjikottai Road,
Thanjavur-613 006. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Public Information Officer,
Storm Water Drain Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003. ... Respondents

¶6

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 disclosing tender details and other associated documents sought for vide letter bearing S.W.D.C.No.3437/A/2018 dated 13.11.2018 until such time a reasoned order is passed by the respondents under Sec.11(3) of the RTI Act (the Act) on the basis of the objections submitted by the petitioner under Sec.11(2) of the Act.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok Standing Counsel ORDER

¶8

This writ petition has been filed forbearing the respondents from disclosing tender details and other associated documents 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")

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.
5. With the above direction, the present writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Public Information Officer,
Storm Water Drain Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
+1cc to Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok, Advocate, S.R.No.3660
+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No.3916
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.4564

¶13

W.P. 1265 of 2019

¶14

SSI(CO) rrs 14/02/2019

¶15

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

V.Gowthaman v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gowthaman 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

S.Sundararaj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Punniyakoti Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

V.Kamalakannan Vs Inspector of Police

K.Thangaraj Vs The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner

P.N.Chinnathambi Vs The Deputy Registrar of

Dr.C.Maheswaran Vs Director