Disposed

A.Muthusamy v. the Assistant Registrar

Madras HC21 Nov 2022WP/29740/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of a Right to Information request covering 8 years of data from 2005 to 2012 due to lack of specificity and public interest. The court held that voluminous data without specific demands lacks public interest and restrained the petitioner from inspection without hearing the third respondent society.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; inspection requires a specific request and permission from concerned officials after hearing the society.

A.Muthusamy Vs the Assistant Registrar — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Writ Petition No.29740 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 21.11.2022

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.29740 of 2013 &

M.P.No.1 of 2013

A.Muthursamy

... Petitioner

The Assistant Registrar, State Information commissioner, No.2, Thiyagarayar Road, Eldams Road Junction, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶12

The General Information Officer, Office of the Director of Handloom and Textiles Department, Chennai – 600 108. Teynampet, Chennai – 18.

¶13

The Appellae Officer, Handloomand Textiles Department, No.12, Muthu Goundenpudur, Tirupur.

¶14

The Textile Control Officer/Public Information Officer, O/o.Assistant Director of Handloom & Textiles, No.12, Muthu Goundenpudur, Tirupur.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/6

¶17

Writ Petition No.29740 of 2013

¶18

5. The Special Officer,

¶19

E.H.30, Vellakovil Handloom Weaver Co-op., Production and Sale Society Ltd., Vellakovil Road, Muthur, Tiruppur District. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned Order passed by the first respondent vide case No.12686 & 17362/enquiry/E/2013 dated 12.07.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to furnish the documents as per the letter issued by the third respondent vide his office proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.541/2013/A, dated 28.03.2013 to the petitioner.

¶21

For Petitioner ... No appearance

¶22

For respondents ... Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for G.R.Associates – R1 Mr.P.Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader – R2 to R4

¶23

Mr.Tippu Sultha, Government Advocate – R5

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned Order passed

¶26

by the first respondent dated 12.07.2013 rejecting the information sought by the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to furnish the

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Writ Petition No.29740 of 2013

¶30

documents sought by the petitioner as per the letter issued by the third respondent dated 28.03.2013.

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner sought details from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2012 from the Vellakovil Handloom Weavers Co-

¶32

operative Society. He has sought the details for 8 years. As the same has not been provided, a Second Appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. The first respondent, after hearing the petitioner, has held that voluminous information for 8 years has been sought by the petitioner and such information has been sought only to divert their attention and the same is not sought in the public interest. Therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶33

Voluminous information has been sought for 8 years, without specifying nature of information required. As rightly held by the first respondent, there is no public interest involved in seeking information for a period of 8 years and hence, voluminous documents cannot be provided. At the most, the petitioner can have an inspection of the records with the permission of

¶34

the concerned officials. Therefore, if at all any specific information is required,

¶35

3/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Writ Petition No.29740 of 2013

¶38

it is well open to the petitioner to inspect the documents and for such inspection he should make a request to the concerned officials and on such request, the officials may permit the petitioner to inspect such inspection of the entire documents. On such request made by the petitioner, since the documents pertains to the society, without hearing them, no such permission can be given by the officials.

¶39

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶40

21.11.2022

¶41

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order

¶42

vrc

¶43

¶44

The Assistant Registrar, State Information commissioner, No.2, Thiyagarayar Road, Eldams Road Junction, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶45

4/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Writ Petition No.29740 of 2013

¶48

The General Information Officer,

¶49

Office of the Director of Handloom and Textiles Department,

¶50

Chennai – 600 108.

¶51

Teynampet, Chennai – 18.

¶52

The Appellae Officer, Handloomand Textiles Department, No.12, Muthu Goundenpudur, Tirupur.

¶53

The Textile Control Officer/Public Information Officer, O/o.Assistant Director of Handloom & Textiles, No.12, Muthu Goundenpudur, Tirupur.

¶54

The Special Officer, E.H.30, Vellakovil Handloom Weaver Co-op., Production and Sale Society Ltd., Vellakovil Road, Muthur, Tiruppur District.

¶55

5/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

Writ Petition No.29740 of 2013

¶58

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J

¶59

vrc

¶60

W.P.No.29740 of 2013

¶61

21.11.2022

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

6/6

A.Muthusamy v. the Assistant Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Muthusamy v. the Assistant Registrar

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

M/S.Valar & Co., Rep. by Its Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

B.Prabakaran, Vs the Superintending Engineer

Annai J.J.Nagar Kudiyiruppor Vs State of Tamilnadu

Sree Maruthi Agrotech Vs Salt Commissioner

M.Natesan Vs N.Shreenatha

S. Ramu Vs The Inspector General of