A.Shanthi Vs the State Represented by Its

6.The Bishop & Manager, All Diocesan Institutions, Church of south India, Tiruchirappalli – Thanjavur Diocese, Diocesan Office, Puthur, Tiruchirappalli 620 017.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.659 of 2025

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th , 5^th respondents to pay the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees ten lakhs only) to the petitioner for failing to comply with the orders of the 1^st to 3^rd respondents in furnishing the required information details and documentary evidences etc to the petitioner within the time limit as fixed by the 1^st respondent – State Information Commissioner under Rights to Information Act, 2005) and against the mental and physical agonies and sufferances etc undergone by her.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.Shanthi (Party-in-Person) For Respondents : Mr.C.Vigneshwaran (for R1) Standing Counsel

¶23

Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal (for R2 & R3) Additional Government Pleader

¶24

Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail (for R4 to R6)

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The writ petitioner is a party-in-person. Her grievance is that respondent nos. 4 and 5 had failed to comply with the orders of the authorities under the Right to Information Act. She pleads that, though she is entitled to certain records, the same were not furnished to her.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.659 of 2025

¶30

This Court had entertained the writ petition and had issued notice to the respondents.

¶31

Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned Standing Counsel took notice on behalf of the first respondent, Mr.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader, took notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and notice was ordered to respondent nos. 4 to 6. Mr.Mohamed Ismail, had entered appearance for respondent nos. 4 to 6.

¶32

When the matter came up on 14.10.2025, Mr.Mohamed Ismail, inviting my attention to his counter affidavit, argued that whatever records the petitioner is seeking to claim, are already in her possession and that this writ petition is a vain attempt by her in order to create records as if she has not been served with the papers at all. He further urges that the petitioner has a habit of making allegations against the fourth respondent and every other person, who are connected with the CSI Boys Higher Secondary School, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶33

These are matters which are not germane to the present writ petition. I am not dealing with issues of service of the

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.659 of 2025

¶37

writ petitioner. The petitioner seeks certain records and as the 4^th respondent school is covered within the meaning of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, it is duty bound to give the records. Hence, I directed Mr.Mohamed Ismail to produce the certified copy of the records sought by the petitioner and posted the matter today.

¶38

When the matter was called, Mr.Mohamed Ismail has produced the records duly certified by the fourth respondent. The records have been handed over to the party-in-person. She has also acknowledged the same and made an endorsement on the court bundle, as well on the letter of Mr.Mohamed Ismail. Hence, the grievance of the writ petitioner having been satisfied, apart from recording that certified copy of the records have been handed over to her, no further orders are necessary.

¶39