Disposed

C.Balasundaram, v. the Block Development Officer

Madras HC26 Nov 2021WP/14711/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner soughtmandamus to secure documents from the Public Information Officer. The Court held that the remedy lies before the State Commission, and the petition need not be entertained without exhausting that statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach State Commission.

C.Balasundaram, Vs the Block Development Officer — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26-11-2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

WP No.14711 of 2014

C.Balasundaram

.. Petitioner

vs.

1.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Authority Under R.T.I. (Public Information Officer under the

¶10

Rights of Information Act, 2005),

¶11

Kottankolathur,

¶12

Chengalpattu Taluk,

¶13

Kancheepuram District.

¶14

2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats), The Appellate Authority Under Rights

¶15

Of Information Act, 2005,

Collector's Office,

Kancheepuram.

.. Respondents

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to furnish the three documents required by the petitioner as mentioned in the Application of the petitioner dated 15.04.2013 filed under R.T.I Act, which was also directed by the Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of R.T.I Act in the Appeal dated 11.06.2013 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Krishnan

¶21

For Respondent-1 : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan

¶22

For Respondent-2 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the the first respondent to furnish the three documents required by the petitioner as mentioned in the Application of the petitioner dated 15.04.2013 filed under R.T.I

¶25

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

¶26

Act, which was also directed by the Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of R.T.I Act in the Appeal dated 11.06.2013 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶27

2. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the event of failure on the part of the Public Information Officer to furnish the informations sought for by the Information Seeker, the remedy is before the State Commission, under the provisions of the RTI Act before exhausting the remedy available before the State Commission, has approached this Court and therefore, the writ petition need not be entertained. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the State Commission in the manner prescribed under the provisions of the RTI Act.

¶28

3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(Cs-VIII)

¶31

//True copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

Svn

¶34

¶35

1.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Authority Under R.T.I. (Public Information Officer under the Rights of Information Act, 2005), Kottankolathur, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶36

2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats), The Appellate Authority Under Rights Of Information Act, 2005, Collector's Office, Kancheepuram.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.K.R.Krishnan, Advocate SR.No.61876

¶38

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.62210

¶39

WP 14711 of 2014

¶40

AK II(CO) GMY(08/12/2021)

¶41

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

C.Balasundaram, v. the Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Balasundaram, v. the Block Development 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

S.Gandhi Vs M.a.Shakil Ahmed (Gm)

Mr.Kirubakaran Vs The Secretary

V.Rathika Vs the Branch Manager

G.Karpagam Vs the Secretary to Government

Mrs.Manimegalai, Vs the Chairman

G.Marasamy, Vs The Tahsildar