M.Shanmugam Vs the State Information Commission

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's Second Appeal No.SA10116-2024 dated 31.07.2024 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass such further orders.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

WP.No.16283 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.S.Kiran For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Vigneswaran, Standing Counsel for R1 Ms.P.Aishwarya, Government Advocate for R2 & R3

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

directing the 1st Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's Second Appeal

¶22

No.SA10116-2024 dated 31.07.2024.

¶23

The petitioner had filed an RTI application dated 27.05.2024 under

¶24

Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the 3rd Respondent, seeking information regarding the mutation of revenue records in Survey No. 448/1, Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. Despite the application being duly received on 28.05.2024, no response was provided within the stipulated period of 30 days. Consequently, the petitioner filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the 2nd Respondent on 29.06.2024, which was also left unattended. Due to the continued inaction, the petitioner was constrained to file a Second Appeal dated 31.07.2024 before the 1st

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

WP.No.16283 of 2025

¶28

Respondent, which was acknowledged and registered as SA10116-2024.

¶29

However, even after eight months, no further action has been taken on the appeal.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all three respondents

¶31

have failed to discharge their statutory duties under the RTI Act, 2005. The prolonged delay in providing the requested information and disposing of the

¶32

appeals amounts to gross indifference and negligence on the part of the authorities. He further asserts that the information sought is routine in nature

¶33

and not exempt under Section 8 of the Act. The failure to act within the prescribed timelines undermines the very purpose of the RTI Act and causes undue hardship. The petitioner has no other alternative or efficacious remedy

¶34

and is therefore constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits

¶36

that the petitioner's second appeal in No.SA10116-2024 dated 31.07.2024

¶37

would be considered on merits, in accordance with law, within a time frame

¶38

stipulated by this Court.

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

3/5

¶41

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

¶42

WP.No.16283 of 2025

¶43

6. Without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is

¶44

directed to dispose of the petitioner's second appeal in No.SA10116-2024 dated 31.07.2024 on merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶45

this order.

¶46

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation and direction . No costs.

22-08-2025

cda/dh

To

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