Allowed

The Public Information Officer v. the State Information

Madras HC10 Jun 2019WP/13951/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Is an order where the single judge allowed the writ petition. The court set aside the impugned order of the State Information Commission passed without providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to be heard as mandated by the Right to Information Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the State Information Commission dated 03.06.2009 is set aside.

The Public Information Officer Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 10.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

W.P.No.13951 of 2009

and

WP.MP.No.1 of 2009

The Public Information Officer, Superintendent, K.Abishekapuram Zonal Office, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirapalli. .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs 1.The State Information Commission, Rep., by its Registrar, I Floor, Kamadhenu Super Market, New No.378, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 018. 2. V.Poonkothai .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records of the first respondent in case No.4870/Enquiry/2009 dated 30.06.2009 signed on 30.06.2009 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Srinivas For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan

¶12

For M/s G.R. Associates for R1

¶13

Mr.K.Thilageswaran for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Public Information Officer, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation, has filed this Writ Petition, to quash the order of the first respondent dated 03.06.2009.

¶16

2 Mr.P.Srinivas, Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the notice for hearing was not served on the petitioner for two hearings and after receiving notice, when he

¶17

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

¶18

appeared before the first respondent on 03.06.2009, on that day the impugned order was passed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he did not receive proper notice and no opportunity was afforded before imposing penalty.

¶19

3 Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan learned counsel for the first respondent made submissions to sustain the order impugned in this Writ petition.

¶20

4 On a perusal of the proviso Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, it is evident that a reasonable opportunity shall be given before imposing any penalty. In the case on our hand, it is not in dispute that the first respondent has imposed penalty in contravention of the proviso to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. Hence the order challenged in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside.

¶21

4 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sbn
To
The Registrar, State Information Commission,
I Floor, Kamadhenu Super Market,
New No.378, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 018.

¶22

+1 cc to M/s.G.R.Associates, Advocate, Sr.No. 46080

¶23

+1 cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, Sr.No. 46799

¶24

W.P.No.13951 of 2009 and WP.MP.No.1 of 2009 CSL/02.07.2019

¶25

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

The Public Information Officer v. the State Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Public Information Officer v. the State 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.Ganesan Vs the Chairman and Managing

Govindammal, Vs the District Collector

A.Rajendran, Vs the Managing Director

N. Venkatesan Vs the Chief Area Manager

V.Kamaraj Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Chinnu Vs the Principal Secretary