Disposed

Dr. Prabakaran Reguna Sukumar v. Tamilnadu Information

Madras HC11 Apr 2023WP/1391/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses four writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission. The High Court did not examine the merits but permitted the petitioners to file reviews or appeals against the impugned orders before the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file appeals against the orders of the Information Commission; writ petitions disposed of. Period pending to be excluded for limitation.

Dr. Prabakaran Reguna Sukumar Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019 and W.M.P. Nos.1551, 1553, 1559 and 1562 of 2019

¶7

Prabakaran Reguna Sukumar

¶8

... Petitioner in all cases

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

1.Tamil Nadu Information Commission, rep. by its Chief Information Commissioner, No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶11

2.Lakshmi Ammal

¶12

... Respondents in W.P. Nos. 3.Jayalakshmi Sekar 1391, 1393 and 1398 of 2019

¶13

(R2 and R3 impleaded vide order dated 02.09.2020 in W.M.P. Nos.14539, 14542 and 14545 of 2020 in W.P. Nos.1391, 1393 and 1398 of 2019 by PDAJ)

¶14

1.Tamil Nadu Information Commission, rep. by its Chief Information Commissioner, No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Teynampet,

¶15

Chennai – 600 018.

¶16

2.Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019

¶20

Chennai – 600 005. 3.The Public Information Officer (under RTI Act)/ Joint Commissioner (Legal), O/o.Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶21

4.Lakshmi Ammal

¶22

... Respondents in W.P. No. 5.Jayalakshmi Sekar 1403 of 2019

¶23

(R4 and R5 impleaded vide order dated 02.09.2020 in W.M.P. No.14550 of 2020 in W.P. No.1403 of 2019 by PDAJ)

¶24

Prayer in W.P. No.1391 of 2019 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in S.A. No.12044/2015 dated 07.08.2018 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to entertain the Review Petition dated 14.05.2018 by conducting fresh enquiry based on the documents on record and oral contentions in respect of S.A. No.12044/2015 and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order for the decision after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶25

Prayer in W.P. No.1393 of 2019 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in S.A. No.43151/F/2014 dated 07.08.2018 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019

¶29

direct the first respondent to entertain the Review Petition dated 19.05.2018 by conducting fresh enquiry based on the written submission, documents on record and oral contentions in respect of S.A. No.43151/F/2014 and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order for the decision after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶30

Prayer in W.P. No.1398 of 2019 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in M.P. No.15665/2015 in S.A. No.3659/2015 dated 07.08.2018 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to entertain the Review Petition dated 12.05.2018 by conducting fresh enquiry based on the written submission, documents on record and oral contentions in respect of M.P. No.15665/2015 in S.A. No.3659/2015 and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order for the decision after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶31

Prayer in W.P. No.1403 of 2019 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in S.A. No.12604/2016 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to entertain the Review Petition dated 14.05.2018 by conducting fresh enquiry based on the written submission, documents on record and oral contentions in respect of S.A. No.12604/2016 and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law,

¶32

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

¶33

3/6

¶34

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019

¶35

within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶36

For Petitioner in all cases : Mr.K.Premkumar For first respondent in W.P. Nos.1391, 1393 and 1398 of 2019 and respondents 1 and 3 in W.P. No.1403 of 2019 : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal For second respondent in : Mr.V.Haribabu, W.P. No.1403 of 2019 Additional Government Pleader (Tax)

¶37

For respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. Nos.1391, 1393 and 1398 of 2019 and respondents 4 and 5 in W.P. No.1403 of 2019 : Mr.A.R.Balaji

¶38

COMMON ORDER

¶39

Challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent, these

¶40

batch of writ petitions have been filed.

¶41

When the matters came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing

¶42

for the petitioners submitted that as against the orders passed by the first respondent, the petitioners have filed review applications and the same has also rejected on the ground that the Information Commission have no power to review

¶43

the order. However, without prejudice to the rights, this Court, without going into

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019

¶47

the merits of the case, permit the petitioners to file an appeal as against the order

¶48

passed by the first respondent in the manner known to law.

¶49

In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court without going into the merits of the case, permit the petitioners to file an appeal before the competent authority as against the order passed by the first respondent.

¶50

With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. The period pending before this Court shall be excluded for `the purpose of limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11.04.2023

rli

1.Tamil Nadu Information Commission, rep. by its Chief Information Commissioner, No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶55

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

¶56

5/6

¶57

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019

¶58

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶59

rli

¶60

2.Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶61

3.The Public Information Officer (under RTI Act)/ Joint Commissioner (Legal), O/o.Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶62

W.P.Nos.1391, 1393, 1398 and 1403 of 2019 and W.M.P. Nos.1551, 1553, 1559 and 1562 of 2019

¶63

11.04.2023

¶64

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

¶65

6/6

Dr. Prabakaran Reguna Sukumar v. Tamilnadu Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Prabakaran Reguna Sukumar v. Tamilnadu Information

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kaliyaperumal, Vs Saheen Begaum

Mrs. Geetha Vs C.Govindaraj

Inder Thakurdas Jaisinghani Vs Shunchonngam Jatak Chiru IAS

M/s.Sri Kalaivani Spinners Private Limited Vs The chief/Branch manager

S.Malathi Vs The Secretary

Syed Ali Vs The Union of India