Allowed¶19

K.Govinda Krishnan v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Aug 2025WMP/32875/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, order dated 06.08.2025 by M. Sundar, J. (with T. Vinod Kumar, J.) in W.M.P. No.32875 of 2025 in W.P.No.29330 of 2025, allowing the writ miscellaneous petition: production of the original impugned order dated 01.02.2025 dispensed with, since the writ petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the first respondent and obtained a photocopy of the order under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (third respondent's reply dated 07.03.2025). Keywords: WMP; dispense with production; original documents; RTI Act, 2005; non-party to proceedings; impugned order dated 01.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Dispensation from production of the original impugned order dated 01.02.2025 granted; captioned W.M.P. No.32875 of 2025 in W.P.No.29330 of 2025 ordered as prayed for. ¶19

K.Govinda Krishnan Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.M.P. No.32875 of 2025 in W.P.No.29330 of 2025

¶2

W.M.P. No.32875 of 2025 in W.P.No.29330 of 2025

¶3

M.SUNDAR, J. and

¶4

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶5

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶6

This order will now dispose of the captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' [hereinafter 'WMP' for the sake of brevity].

¶7

Captioned WMP has been filed with prayer to dispense with production of 'original impugned order dated 01.02.2025 issued by first respondent' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].

¶8

Mr. P. Vijendran, learned counsel on record for writ

¶9

petitioner, is before this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for writ petitioner, adverting to writ support affidavit, submitted that the writ petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the first respondent and therefore, the impugned order was not communicated to him. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the writ petitioner obtained the same under the Right to Information Act, 2005, due to which, the impugned order could not be filed in original. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to relevant part of support affidavit in W.P.No.29330 of 2025, which reads as follows:

¶11

Page Nos.1/3

¶12

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

¶13

W.M.P. No.32875 of 2025 in W.P.No.29330 of 2025

¶14

and

¶15

M.SUNDAR, J.

¶16

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶17

cad

¶18

'18. That I am not party to the proceedings before the 1^st respondent and therefore the impugned order was not communicated to me. Therefore, I gave a letter under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and requested to issue a copy of the impugned order. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent issued a reply dated 07.03.2025 along with the photo copy of the impugned order dated 01.02.2025.'

¶19

5. In the light of the narrative thus far, dispense with prayer is acceded to. Captioned WMP is ordered as prayed for.

¶20

[M.S.,J.] [T.V.K.,J.] 06.08.2025

¶21

cad

¶22

W.M.P. No.32875 of 2025 in W.P.No.29330 of 2025

¶23

(1/2)

¶24

Page Nos.2/3