Dismissed

M/s. Rti Foundation, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC23 Jan 2019WP/1676/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras held that a petitioner challenging a notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act seeking an opinion cannot do so at that stage as proper orders must be passed under Section 11(3) after considering objections. However, respondents are restrained from furnishing information to third parties pending the evaluation of petitioner's objections.

What did the court decide?

Proposed temporary stay on furnishing information to third party directed; rest of the petition dismissed.

M/s. Rti Foundation, Vs The Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.01.2019

¶2

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.No. 1676 of 2019 and W.M.P.No. 1881 of 2019

¶3

M/s. RTI Foundation, rep. by its Proprietor, R.Arunraj, S/o. Ramachandran, No.23/57, Arul Nagar 2nd street, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai -600 051 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003. 2. The Superintending Engineer/ Public Information Officer, Storm Water Drain Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.

¶4

The Superintending Engineer, Bus Route Roads Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai -600 003. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Buildings Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai -600 003. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Solid Waste Management Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai -600 003.

¶5

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

¶6

The Finance Adviser, Finance Management Unit, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Petition 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.B3/4161-38/2017 dated 19.11.2018 on the file of the 2nd 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.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Doraisamy

¶9

This writ petition has 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")

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing 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 their objection. 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, 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 petitioner cannot challenge the same. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition.

¶12

However, now the petitioner submitted their 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.

¶13

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

¶14

With the above direction, all the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

mrp

¶18

To
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Superintending Engineer/
Public Information Officer,
Storm Water Drain Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Bus Route Roads Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai -600 003.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Buildings Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai -600 003.
5. The Superintending Engineer,
Solid Waste Management Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai -600 003.
6. The Finance Adviser,
Finance Management Unit,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai - 600 003.

¶19

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

¶20

+1cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.4959 +2ccs to Mr.Karthikaa Ashok, Advocate, S.R.No.5023 & 6138 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.5485.

W.P.No. 1676 of 2019

NMI(CO)

rrs 05/02/2019

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

M/s. Rti Foundation, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Rti Foundation, 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

N.Thamilarasan Vs The District Collector

K.Gunasekar Vs The State Election Comissioner

S.R.Shanmugam Vs The TamilNadu state co-opertive

C.M.D.a.Truck Terminal Vs the Member Secretary

Kovi. Chandrasekaran, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Karunakaran Vs The General Manager