Disposed

M.Gnanasekar v. The Public Information officer

Madras HC7 Dec 2023WP/5254/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging an Information Commission notice, the High Court observed the existence of an effective alternative remedy under Section 19 of the RTI Act. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act; limitation period adjusted from the date of filing.

M.Gnanasekar Vs The Public Information officer — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No. 5254 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P. No. 5254 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 5812 of 2021

¶7

M. Gnanasekar … Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Public Information Officer, National Highways Authority of India, No.D.P-34, Sri Towers, South Phase, 3^rd Floor, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶10

2.The Transport Commissioner, and State Transport Authority, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records relating to the order vide No.NHAI/18011/96/2021/PIU.Chennai/390, dated 12.02.2021 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 1^st respondent to furnish the required information as per the application submitted by the petitioner on 27.01.2021.

¶12

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

¶13

1/5

¶14

W.P. No. 5254 of 2021

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Sathiyavel For Respondents : Mrs. S.R.Sumathy (for R1) Mr. U.Baranidaran, Additional Government Pleader (for R2)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr. K.Sathiyavel, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

¶18

Mrs. S.R.Sumathy, Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. U.Baranidaran, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶19

When it was pointed out that the Petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy to challenge the Proceedings in No. NHAI/18011/ 96/2021/PIU.Chennai/390 dated 12.02.2021 passed by the First Respondent, which is impugned in the Writ Petition, by filing appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to resort to the aforesaid procedure and he has made an endorsement to that effect in the court record.

¶20

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

¶21

2/5

¶22

W.P. No. 5254 of 2021

¶23

In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. It is made clear that for the purpose of reckoning limitation for availing the aforesaid remedy, the period from the date of filing of the Writ Petition, viz., 18.02.2021, till the date on which the certified copy of this order is made ready by the Registry, shall be excluded. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶24

07.12.2023

¶25

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶26

Note: (i) Issue order copy by 31.01.2024.

¶27

(ii) Registry is directed to return the impugned order under written acknowledgment after retaining a copy of the same for record.

¶28

gsa

¶29

¶30

1.The Public Information Officer, National Highways Authority of India, No.D.P-34, Sri Towers, South Phase, 3^rd Floor, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶31

2.The Transport Commissioner, and State Transport Authority,

¶32

Transport Department,

¶33

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

¶34

3/5

¶35

W.P. No. 5254 of 2021

¶36

Ezhilagam, Chennai 600 005.

¶37

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

¶38

4/5

¶39

W.P. No. 5254 of 2021

¶40

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶41

gsa

¶42

W.P. No. 5254 of 2021

¶43

07.12.2023

¶44

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

¶45

5/5

M.Gnanasekar v. The Public Information officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gnanasekar v. The Public Information 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

A.Shakila Banu Vs the Principal Chief Officer

M.Sivakumar @ Koothaan Vs the District Collector

T.Ramesh Vs the District Collector

Murganantham Vs Tamil Nadu State Information Commission

M.Ananda Krishnan Vs Tamil Nadu information commission

Saurav Das Vs Chief Information Commissioner