Velayutham Vs the State Information Commission — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Velayutham Vs the State Information Commission — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the above observations and directions: (a) petitioner to submit a fresh application to the first respondent (State Information Commission) within two weeks of receipt of the order; (b) first respondent to consider it on merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks thereof. No costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the first respondent (State Information Commission) to pass an order directing the third respondent (PIO) to furnish the information sought (the prayer refers to an application dated 06.04.2024, while the narrative records an RTI application dated 25.03.2024).

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case, issuing procedural directions instead of adjudicating the disclosure dispute.

Ratio / Principle

Direction (a): the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Key takeaways

Direction (b): on receipt of such application from the petitioner, the first respondent shall consider the same on merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereof.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, N. Mala, J. - WP.No.15999 of 2025, decided 22-08-2025. Petitioner Velayutham (Saidapet) sought, via an RTI application recorded in the narrative as dated 25.03.2024 (the prayer cites an application dated 06.04.2024), information from the Public Information Officer/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Karaneeswarar Thirukoil, Saidapet, regarding the employment status of Mr. Thanigalvel at the Karaneeshwarar Temple. After the PIO failed to respond, the First Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments) directed furnishing of the information within five days pursuant to a first appeal dated 28.05.2024, yet the PIO declined; a second appeal to the State Information Commission dated 21.07.2024 drew no action, and a legal notice dated 11.12.2024 was acknowledged but not acted upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the refusal was arbitrary, aimed at shielding Mr. Thanigalvel (alleged malpractices and disciplinary action), and that the information fell outside the exemptions in Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005; the Standing Counsel for the Commission stated no application had been received. On the petitioner offering to file afresh, and without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition (filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus), directing: (a) the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the State Information Commission within two weeks of receipt of the order; and (b) the Commission to consider it on merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks thereof. No costs.

WP.No.15999 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N.MALA

WP.No.15999 of 2025

Velayutham, Residing at No.11/35, Karani Thottam, Main Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The State Information Commission, Block No.19, Government Farm Village, Panepet, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

2.The First Appellate Authority, The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments, R.K.Madam Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

3.The Public Information Officer, Executive Officer, Arulmigu Karaneeswarar Thirukoil, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass

1/6

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

WP.No.15999 of 2025

an order directing the third respondent to furnish the information with regard to the application dated 06.04.2024 submitted with third respondent within a time frame and pass such further orders.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.Dhamodharan

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Vigneswaran, Standing Counsel for R1

Mr.S.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,

directing the first respondent to pass an order directing the third respondent to

furnish the information with regard to the application dated 06.04.2024 submitted with third respondent.

The Petitioner is a resident of Saidapet and submitted the RTI

application dated 25.03.2024 to the third respondent seeking information regarding the employment status of Mr. Thanigalvel at the Karaneeshwarar Temple, Saidapet, Chennai. As the third respondent failed to respond, the

Petitioner filed a first appeal on 28.05.2024 before the second respondent, who

then directed the third respondent to furnish the requested information within

2/6

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

WP.No.15999 of 2025

five days. Despite this, the third respondent declined to provide the information.

The Petitioner then filed a second appeal to the first respondent on 21.07.2024, but no action followed. A legal notice was sent on 11.12.2024 to the third respondent, which was acknowledged but not acted upon. Thus, the Petitioner

approached this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the refusal to disclose

the information is arbitrary and aimed at shielding Mr. Thanigalvel, who is alleged to have committed malpractices and faced disciplinary actions. He asserts that the information sought does not fall under any of the exemptions listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The non-disclosure, despite directives

from the second respondent, is wilful and unjustified. Hence, this case.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would

submit that he has not received any application from the petitioner, and the same

was ascertained by the respondents Authorities by oral instructions.

In view of the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he is ready and willing to submit a fresh application to the first

respondent.

3/6

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

WP.No.15999 of 2025

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to

pass the following directions:

a) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application to the first

respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

b) On receipt of such application from the petitioner, the first respondent shall consider the same on merits, in accordance with law, and

pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereof.

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above

observations and direction . No costs.

22-08-2025

cda/dh

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

4/6

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

WP.No.15999 of 2025

To

1.The State Information Commission, Block No.19, Government Farm Village, Panepet,

Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

2.The First Appellate Authority, The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments, R.K.Madam Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

3.The Public Information Officer, Executive Officer, Arulmigu Karaneeswarar Thirukoil, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

5/6

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

WP.No.15999 of 2025

N.MALA. J.

cda/dh

WP.No.15999 of 2025

22-08-2025

6/6

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