Disposed

Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj v. The Central Information office

Madras HC13 Feb 2020WP/20663/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Respondent for appropriate remedies under the RTI Act regarding non-compliance of an order, thereby closing the Writ Petition without merits without expressing any view on the contentions raised.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the Respondent for appropriate remedy under the R.T.I. Act; Writ Petition closed without merits.

Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj Vs The Central Information office — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.20663 of 2018

¶6

Nithyaesh Natraj ... Petitioner vs The Central Information Commissioner, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 006. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to reopen the 2nd Appeal bearing No.CIC/MOCAF/A/2017/152511 as mentioned in representation dated 09.07.2018 For Petitioners: Mr.Narasimha Varman For Respondent : Mr.Venkatasamy Babu, Central Govt.Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶7

This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the respondent to reopen the 2nd Appeal bearing No.CIC/MOCAF/ A/2017/ 152511.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that though the respondent has passed an order on 03.04.2018 in the Appeal directing the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, to provide information sought for by the petitioner within a period of three weeks, the concerned Information Officer has not communicated the petitioner so far by way of reply. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for reopening the Appeal before the respondent. In effect, the grievance of the petitioner is against the non-compliance of the order passed by the respondent.

¶10

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

¶11

Needless to state that there is procedure provided under the R.T.I. Act for the aggrieved party to approach the concerned authority, if the orders passed by such authority was not complied with. Without doing so, the petitioner is not justified in filing the Writ Petition, that too, for reopening the 2nd Appeal. Therefore, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent for seeking appropriate remedy as provided under the R.T.I. Act, this Writ Petition is closed without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by both parties. No costs.

¶12

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
The Central Information Commissioner,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110 006.
+1 CC to Mr.Venkatasamy Babu, Advocate sr 11646.
W.P.No.20663 of 2018
SP(16/03/2020)

¶13

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

Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj v. The Central Information office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj v. The Central Information office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Nepc Agro Foods Vs Assistant provident Fund Commissioner

A.K.Rajan, Vs The Public Information Officer

Mrs.T.K.Sreelatha Vs S.Madhumathi IAS

R.C.Gokulakrishnan Vs v.Senthil Kumar

The Zonal Officer, Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management Vs The Regional Provident Fund