The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order by the State Information Commissioner that treated his complaint as an appeal. The court held that no orders on merits were passed and since the information was already provided, the petition had no survival.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
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 : 20.03.2020 CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ W.P.No.7127 of 2020
Kasi Mayan
... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commission, No.2, Theagaraya Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
2.The Public Information Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Dept, DDHS Office Campus,
Thiruvallur District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quashed the impugned order vide No.CP.480/E/2017 on 14.11.2018 passed by the 1st respondent and further direct the 1st respondent to take action in the petitioner complaint dated 28.06.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal for M/s.G.R.Associates (for R1) : Mr.M.Venkadesh kumar Government Advocate (for R2) O R D E R
The present writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quashed the impugned order, vide No.CP.480/E/2017, dated 14.11.2018 passed by the first respondent and further, to direct the first respondent, to take action in the petitioner complaint dated 28.06.2017.
1/3
information within 30 days. He made a complaint to the first respondent. In the meanwhile, with a delay of 16 days the information was provided. However, the first respondent has treated his complaint as appeal and directed the Public Information Officer, Thiruvallur, to provide information within 30 days, if not provided and also send the details to the Commission. Public Information Officer, Thiruvallur was also instructed the manner in which the information should be provided. It is also observed that the applicant is entitled to file an appeal, if he is not satisfied with the same. Against which this order, the petitioner is before this Court.
-s/dAssistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
dm
2/3
To
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tamil Nadu Information Commission could treat the petitioner's complaint as an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned order of the State Information Commissioner survives adjudication.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kasi Mayan
State Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commission
Public Information Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Dept
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
