Dismissed¶24

Dr.S.Senthilkumar v. the State Information Commissioner

Madras HC10 Nov 2025WP/4650/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI contradictory replies enquiry; writ of mandamus Article 226; Tamilnadu State Information Commission; appeal pending before State Information Commission; Public Information Officer Namakkal; First Appellate Authority; Registrar General Madras High Court; frivolous writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; WP No.4650 of 2025; Madras High Court; decided 10.11.2025; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava CJ; G.Arul Murugan J.

What did the court decide?

The petition is completely baseless and frivolous. ¶23

Dr.S.Senthilkumar Vs the State Information… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No.4650 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

WP No.4650 of 2025

Dr.S.Senthilkumar

: Petitioner

versus

1.The State Information Commissioner, Tamilnadu State Information Commission, Teynampet, Chennai.

¶14

2.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai-104

¶15

3.The Public Information Officer, O/o The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Combined Court Complex, Namakkal. : Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry with regard to the contradictory RTI replies furnished by the office of the 3^rd respondent dated 16-04-2013 and 05-02-2021 to the petitioner by considering the representations submitted by the petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2 on 27-08-2024 and 04-12-2024 within a short date that may be fixed by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Vinodhini Mathelene For Respondents : Mr.S.Arjun Suresh, for respondents 2 and 3

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No.4650 of 2025

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

The petition is completely baseless and frivolous. The relief sought in the petition is for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to conduct a fresh inquiry, on the allegation that two contradictory RTI replies were furnished by the office of the third respondent.

¶24

It is not in dispute that dissatisfied with the order passed by the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the State Information Commission, which is still pending consideration. Therefore, no direction as prayed for in this petition can be granted. The petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶25

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 10.11.2025

¶26

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

WP No.4650 of 2025

¶30

¶31