Disposed¶24

S.R.Ratheesh v. The Authorized Officer/The Chief Manager

Madras HC28 Aug 2025WA(MD)/2236/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; writ appeal W.A(MD)No.2236 of 2025 under Clause XV Letters Patent against order dated 21.07.2025 in W.P(MD)No.19632 of 2025; Central Bank of India Authorized Officer and Public Information Officer; representation dated 11.06.2025 answered by reply letter dated 10.07.2025 furnishing information sought; grievance of incomplete information; remedy before State Commission; writ petition disposed of, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P(MD)No.12696 of 2025 closed; bench S.M.Subramaniam and G.Arul Murugan, JJ.; counsel M.Natarajan (appellant) and N.Dilipkumar, Standing Counsel (respondents).

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition is disposed of with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ¶24

S.R.Ratheesh Vs The Authorized Officer/The Chief Manager — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition is disposed of with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the information sought by the petitioner/appellant from the Central Bank of India had been fully furnished, and if grievances persist regarding incomplete supply of information, what is the appropriate avenue of redressal.

¶23

Court's answer

The appellant's last representation dated 11.06.2025 was responded to, and the first respondent, the Authorized Officer of the Bank, sent a letter dated 10.07.2025 furnishing the information sought in the petitioner's application.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

An aggrieved person whose grievance is that all information sought has not been provided may approach the State Commission for redressal of the grievance.

¶23

Key takeaways

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A(MD)No.2236 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 28.08.2025) under Clause XV of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.07.2025 in W.P(MD)No.19632 of 2025. The appellant, S.R.Ratheesh, had challenged the disposal of his writ petition concerning information sought from M/s.Central Bank of India. The Division Bench (S.M.Subramaniam and G.Arul Murugan, JJ.; judgment authored by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) recorded that the appellant's last representation dated 11.06.2025 was responded to, and that the first respondent, the Authorized Officer of the Bank, sent a letter dated 10.07.2025 furnishing the information sought in the application. On the submission that not all information sought had been provided, the Court observed that an aggrieved person may approach the State Commission for redressal of the grievance. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P(MD)No.12696 of 2025) was closed. Counsel: Mr.M.Natarajan for the appellant; Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Standing Counsel, for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶1

W.A(MD)No.2236 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶8

W.A(MD)No.2236 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.12696 of 2025

¶9

S.R.Ratheesh

¶10

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Authorized Officer / The Chief Manager, M/s.Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Raja Muthaiah Mandram, 1st Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai.

¶13

2.The Public Information Officer, M/s.Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Raja Muthaiah Mandram, 1st Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai.

¶14

... Respondents/Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 21.07.2025 in W.P(MD)No.19632 of 2025.

¶16

1/3

¶17

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

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.M.Natarajan For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Standing Counsel

¶19

W.A(MD)No.2236 of 2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM.,J. )

¶22

The writ order under challenge in the present appeal would reveal that

¶23

the last representation submitted by the appellant on 11.06.2025 was responded and the first respondent the Authorized Officer of the Bank sent a letter dated 10.07.2025 furnishing the informations as such sought for by the petitioner in his application. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the informations sought for by the petitioner have not been provided. In this regard, an aggrieved person may approach the State Commission for redressal of his grievance.

¶24