Allowed

G.Nandagopalan v. The State Information commissioner

Madras HC15 Dec 2023WP/12404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of the Second Respondent to comply with an RTI order. The Court directed the State Information Commissioner to monitor the compliance of the earlier order by listing the Second Appeal for hearing and taking further action if not complied with.

What did the court decide?

Granted: Direction to First Respondent to list Second Appeal on 05.06.2024 for compliance verification and take further action if order not complied with.

G.Nandagopalan Vs The State Information commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No. 12404 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. No. 12404 of 2022

G.Nandagopalan

… Petitioner

-vs-

The State Information Commissioner

¶11

Tamil Nadu Information Commission No.2, Theagaraya Salai, Near Aalai Amman Kovil Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶12

The Correspondent

¶13

St. Joseph Boys Higher Secondary School Susainagar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

The District Educational Officer

¶15

Tiruvannamalai.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(R3 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 07.12.2023)

¶18

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶19

1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First Respondent to consider the representation dated 03.08.2020 send under Section 18(1)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005, and to take appropriate action against the concerned persons for disclosing incomplete information.

¶20

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

¶21

1/5

¶22

W.P. No. 12404 of 2022

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Aravindraj For Respondents : Mr. C.Vigneswaran (R1)

¶24

Ms. Arul Mary For M/s. Fr. Xavier Associates (R2)

¶25

Mr. U.Baranidharan, AGP (R3)

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Heard Mr. K.Aravindraj, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. C.Vigneswaran, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent, Ms. Arul Mary of M/s. Fr. Xavier Associates, Learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent and Mr. U.Baranidharan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶28

The grievance ventilated by the Petitioner is that he had made a representation dated 03.08.2020 stating that the information required by him from the Second and Third Respondents has not been furnished despite the order dated 28.05.2020 in Case No. S.A.1316/D/2020 passed by the First Respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), but as it did not evoke any

¶29

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

¶30

2/5

¶31

W.P. No. 12404 of 2022

¶32

response, it has necessitated the filing of this Writ Petition.

¶33

Having due regard to the fact that the scheme devised under Section 20 of the Act requires the State Information Commission to ensure compliance of its orders, the First Respondent ought to have fixed time frame for the Second Respondent to comply with its directions passed on 28.05.2020 and posted the matter for reporting compliance. Since that exercise has not taken place, the First Respondent shall list the aforesaid Second Appeal on 05.06.2024, and the Petitioner and the Second Respondent shall appear for that hearing without fail. If the First Respondent is not in a position to take up the matter for hearing on that date, it shall inform to all parties concerned of the adjourned date of hearing in the prescribed manner. The First Respondent shall verify whether the order has been complied by the Second Respondent and if not, shall take further action in accordance with law following the prescribed procedure in consonance with the principles of natural justice and shall communicate the decision taken to the parties under written acknowledgment.

¶34

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No

¶35

costs.

¶36

15.12.2023

¶37

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶38

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

¶39

3/5

¶40

W.P. No. 12404 of 2022

¶41

Note: Issue order copy by 06.05.2024. pal

¶42

¶43

The State Information Commissioner Tamil Nadu Information Commission No.2, Theagaraya Salai, Near Aalai Amman Kovil Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶44

The Correspondent St. Joseph Boys Higher Secondary School Susainagar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶45

The District Educational Officer Tiruvannamalai.

¶46

Copy to

¶47

G.Nandagopalan, No. 708, Old Thattara Street, Devikapuram, Chetpet, Tiruvannamalai – 606 902.

¶48

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

¶49

4/5

¶50

W.P. No. 12404 of 2022

¶51

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶52

pal

¶53

W.P. No. 12404 of 2022

¶54

15.12.2023

¶55

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

¶56

5/5

G.Nandagopalan v. The State Information commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Nandagopalan v. The State Information commissioner

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.SivadasRavi Vs District collector

Sakthivel Modern Rice Mill Vs The Managing Director

Rajarajeswari Dhanesh (Deceased), Vs The Commissioner

Lta Peter RAyan Vs The Registrar

S.Fayas Ahamed Vs The Chief Information Commissioner

D.Sivakumar Vs The Secretary