The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking compensation for delay in furnishing Right to Information. The Court held that since the information was already furnished and no malafide action or withholding without cause was established, the question of awarding exemplary cost did not arise.
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.
W.P.No.18300 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.18300 of 2013 &
M.P.No.1 of 2013
R.Vijayan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commercial Tax Officer Office of the Commercial Tax Gobald Kane Rangasamudram Sathyamangalam-2
2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Office of the Commercial Tax Brough Road Erode 3.The State Information Commissioner Office of the State Information Commission No.2, Thiyagarayar Salai Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 R3 impleaded as per order date 09.12.2014 by VRSJ in Mps.2 and 3 of 2014 in W.P.No.18300 of 2013 ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________
Page 1 of 7
W.P.No.18300 of 2013
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in respect of the enquiry of the case No.43133 of 2011 altered as case No.4306 of 2013 conducted by the Tamilndau State Information Commission and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to give the information sought
for under The Right to Information Act 2005 with exemplary cost.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayan
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasantha Mala, G.A. (T) for R1 and 2
Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for R3
O R D E R
Writ Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in respect of the enquiry of the case No.43133 of 2011 altered as case No.4306 of 2013 conducted by the Tamilndau State Information Commission and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to give the information sought for under The Right to Information Act 2005 with exemplary cost.
information from the 1st respondent about the yearly statement of the Prasanna Traders for the financial years 1994-95,1995-96,1996-97.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________
_________ Page 2 of 7_
W.P.No.18300 of 2013
However, the same was declined. The appeal filed against the same also ended in vain. Therefore, he filed Second Appeal before the State Information Commissioner. However, the State Information Commissioner by impugned order directed the respondent to furnish the copies. The State Information Commission has delayed the information. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the State Information Commission with exemplary cost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________
_________ Page 3 of 7_
W.P.No.18300 of 2013
respondent and now the information has already been furnished, this Court is of the view that the question of awarding compensation does not arise at all. Only when the State Information Commission finding that information has been withheld without any reasonable cause and refused to receive any application or information or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information, the maximum penalty can be twenty five thousand rupees. Whereas the entire impugned order does not speak about any malafide action on the part of the respondents or withheld the documents without any reasonable cause.
26.10.2022
kpr Internet:Yes Speaking/Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________
_________ Page 4 of 7_
W.P.No.18300 of 2013
To
1.The Commercial Tax Officer Office of the Commercial Tax Gobald Kane Rangasamudram Sathyamangalam-2
2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Office of the Commercial Tax Brough Road Erode
3.The State Information Commissioner Office of the State Information Commission No.2, Thiyagarayar Salai Teynampet, Chennai-600 018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________
Page 5 of 7
W.P.No.18300 of 2013
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kpr
W.P.No.18300 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013
26.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________
_________ Page 6 of 7_
W.P.No.18300 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for delay in furnishing RTI information after the State Information Commission had already directed the respondents to furnish the copies.
Whether the question of awarding compensation arises when the information has already been furnished without malafide intent.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Vijayan
The Commercial Tax Officer
The Deputy Commissioner (CT)
The State Information Commissioner
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
