Petitioner withdrawn RTI challenge seeking temple conservation reports. Court dismissed writ petition noting First Respondent complied with Tribunal recommendations to maintain stock file for future inspection requests.
Petitioner granted liberty to obtain required information through procedure recommended by the Information Commission.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 23130 of 2017
S.Srikumar ...Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Public Information Officer,
Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. The First Appellate Authority,
Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
No. 2, Theagaraya Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the Third Respondent in Second Appeal in S.A. No. 10940/SCIC/2016 dated 19.04.2017 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to furnish the Petitioner with the copies of the conservation reports/notes on temples received by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department from the year 2012 to 2016 under the RTI Act.
For Petitioner : Mr. T.S.Vijaya Raghavan for Mr. SP.Chockalingam For Respondents: Mr. M.Karthikeyan, Special Government Pleader (for R1 & R2) Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Standing Counsel (for R3)
O R D E R
(through video conference)
(Order of the Court was delivered by P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.)
Heard Mr. T.S.Vijaya Raghavan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. M.Karthikeyan, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents and Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
“2. The petitioner /Appellant had asked for copies of Conservation reports received by HR&CE from the year 2012 to 2016 from different officials/ consultants. The Public Information Officer explains that when any renovation (Thirupani) work is proposed in any temple, generally preceding Kumbhabishekam, the report of an official/consultant is called for. Each such work is dealt with in a separate file and the Conservation report is kept in the concerned files relating to that work. During this period, over 300 such Conservation reports were collected and they are kept in over 300 different files. The job of scrutinizing all these files and taking out the relevant Conservation reports will, according to the Public Information Officer involve deployment of additional staff for this
purpose and this would result in unwarranted diversion of the resources of the office. In view of this, the reply given that if a report relating to any particular temple is requested it can be given is considered to be in order....
(1) of the RTI Act pro active disclosure:
(i)One copy of conservation report may be kept in stock file titled Conservation Reports Stock File. These reports could be kept year wise.
(ii)If any request is made for a copy of the inspection report, it can be made available to the petitioner.
(iii)However, it is stated that certain information in the reports could be sensitive. Any such sensitive material can be severed under section 10 of the RTI Act and furnished to applicants. It is suggested that the Commissioner HR&CE may examine this and initiate appropriate action.”
Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Third Respondent.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
granting such liberty. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Public Information Officer,
Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. The First Appellate Authority,
Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
No. 2, Theagaraya Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
W.P. No. 23130 of 2017
SR-II(CO)
RV(07/12/2020)
S.Srikumar
The Public Information Officer, Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
The First Appellate Authority, Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
The Tamil Nadu Information Commission
R. MAHADEVAN
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
