Dismissed

A.K.Rajan, v. The Public Information Officer

Madras HC12 Feb 2020WP/9839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to respondents under the RTI Act to furnish a village map. The Court held that since the State Commission had passed an order for compliance, the petitioner should approach that forum. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the State Commission and no costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the State Commission and seek appropriate relief for non-compliance of the order dated 06.12.2015. No costs awarded.

A.K.Rajan, Vs The Public Information Officer — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.No.9839 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.No.9839 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.11772 of 2018
A.K.Rajan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Public Information Officer,
Tamilnadu Archives & Historical Research Centre,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2.The Public Information Officer/Assistant Director,
(Drafts) Central Survey Office,
Chennai 600 005.
3.The Public Information Officer/Deputy Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Nagapattinam Town & Post,
Nagapattinam District 600 001. ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to furnish all the vital information viz., The Kottagam Village Map, falling under the third respondent, territorial jurisdiction sought for by the petitioner in his representation under the Right to Information Act, dated 01.08.2016, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mohammed

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.K.Magesh Special Government Pleader

¶10

1/4

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

W.P.No.9839 of 2018

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to direct the respondents to furnish all the vital information viz., The Kottagam Village Map, falling under the third respondent, territorial jurisdiction sought for by the petitioner in his representation dated 01.08.2016 under the Right to Information Act, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

2.This matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing counter by the respondents. When it was taken up on the last hearing dated 29.01.2020, the learned counsel for the respondents again sought time for filing counter. Hence, this Court adjourned the matter finally to 12.02.2020 (today) for filing counter also by indicating that if no counter affidavit is filed on the said date, the matter will be taken up and decided based on the materials available on record. Accordingly, the matter is listed today. Once again the respondents seek time for filing counter. This Court is not inclined to grant further time.

¶16

The petitioner seems to have filed an application under RTI Act to seek certain information. It is stated that the said information has not been furnished and appeal presented before the concerned Authority was also not fruitful. Thus, it is stated that second appeal was also filed before the State

¶17

2/4

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

W.P.No.9839 of 2018

¶20

Commission, which in turn passed an order on 06.12.2015, directing the Public Information Officer, Tamilnadu Archives and Historical Research Center, to furnish the information and send a report to the State Commission within 30 days. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said order was passed on 06.12.2015, the information was not furnished so far. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition.

¶21

Needless to state that if the order passed by the second Appellate Authority has not been complied with, the relevant Act, viz., Right to Information Act provides the procedure to be followed before the concerned forum as against the non compliance of the direction. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to approach the State Commission and file appropriate application for seeking redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, only by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Commission and seek appropriate relief. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

13.02.2020

¶23

Index :Yes/No Note:Issue order copy on 20.02.2020. vri

¶24

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

¶25

3/4

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.P.No.9839 of 2018

vri

1.The Public Information Officer, Tamilnadu Archives & Historical Research Centre, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶31

2.The Public Information Officer/Assistant Director, (Drafts) Central Survey Office, Chennai 600 005.

¶32

3.The Public Information Officer/Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Nagapattinam Town & Post, Nagapattinam District 600 001.

W.P.No.9839 of 2018

13.02.2020

4/4

http://www.judis.nic.in

A.K.Rajan, v. The Public Information Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Rajan, v. The Public Information Officer

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

B.Selvam Vs The Managing Director

Ttk Health Care Ltd., Vs United Labour Federation

V.Chandru, Vs The Appellate Authority Cum

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

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

Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj Vs The Central Information office