Dismissed¶33

S.Ilango v. the Public Information Officer

Alternative remedy – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Refusal by Public Information Officer

Madras HC6 Jan 2025WP/8085/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005 Section 19(1) Section 19(3) first appeal Appellate Authority second appeal State Information Commission adequate alternative remedy refusal of information Public Information Officer writ of certiorari Article 226 maintainability Tamilnadu Housing Board 'M'book Bill of Quantities substandard construction S.G. Jaisinghani AIR 1967 SC 1427 Madras High Court Justice S. Sounthar W.P.No.8085 of 2024 dismissed liberty four weeks no costs

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 within four weeks; Appellate Authority directed to entertain and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law; no costs; connected W.M.P.No.9034 of 2024 closed. ¶33

S.Ilango Vs the Public Information Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 should be entertained where the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides an adequate alternative remedy — a first appeal before the Appellate Authority and a second appeal before the State Information Commission — against the Public Information Officer's refusal of information.

¶28

Court's answer

Where the Public Information Officer refuses to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner/aggrieved party is entitled to file an appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority, and against the Appellate Authority's decision a second appeal lies before the State Information Commission.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since adequate remedies (first appeal and second appeal) are available under the Right to Information Act, 2005 against the impugned refusal, the petitioner's contention that the refusal falls outside the four corners of the Act must be agitated before the appellate authorities constituted under the Act; accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶32

Key takeaways

On dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is given liberty to file an appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 within four weeks, and the said Authority shall entertain and dispose of it in accordance with law.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Alternative remedy — Right to Information Act, 2005 — Refusal by Public Information Officer — Petitioner, allottee of Tamilnadu Housing Board flat alleging substandard construction, sought documents ('M'book, Bill of Quantities) under the RTI Act during pendency of his earlier writ petition (W.P.No.35202 of 2023); refusal by PIO challenged via writ of certiorari under Article 226. HELD: An aggrieved party whose request is refused by the PIO may file a first appeal under Section 19(1) before the prescribed Appellate Authority, and a second appeal under Section 19(3) before the State Information Commission; adequate statutory remedy existing, the writ petition is not entertained and is dismissed, with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority within four weeks, which shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. (Paras 26-33)

¶1

W.P.No.8085 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.8085 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.9034 of 2024

S.Ilango

... Petitioner

vs.

The Public Information Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Foreshore Estate Division (FSE DN) Tamilnadu Housing Board 485, Annasalai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to respondent in his letter No.P.Pa.Co/Tha.Aa.Vu.Sa/069/2017/007108, dated 23.02.2024, quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.P.Arivudainambi For Respondent : Mr.D.Veerasekaran

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.8085 of 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent in No.P.Pa.Co/Tha.Aa.Vu.Sa/069/2017/007108, dated 23.02.2024 r efusing to furnish certain information sought for by the petitioner.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that he is an allottee of the flat constructed by the respondent-Board and he found the construction was substandard. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.35202 of 2023 seeking a direction to the respondent-Board to stop payment of bills to the civil contractor, who was engaged by the Board for construction and for other consequential relief. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking certain documents relating to construction of the building like 'M'book, Bill of Quantities etc. The said information/documents sought for by the petitioner was refused by the respondent by citing the pendency of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court. In support of his

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.8085 of 2024

¶24

contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of Apex Court in S.G.Jaisinghani vs Union of India and others reported in AIR 1967 SC

¶25

1427 .

¶26

If the Public Information Officer refused to furnish any information, under Section 19(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, petitioner/aggrieved party is entitled to file an appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority. Further, against the decision of the Appellate Authority, a second appeal will lie before the State Information Commission

¶27

under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶28

In view of the availability of not only the appeal remedy before the Appellate Authority but also the availability of remedy of second appeal before the State Information Commission, there is adequate remedy available under Right to Information Act, 2005 for the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the respondent. The petitioner herein is complaining of violation of his statutory rights under Right to Information Act. The act provides for adequate remedy against the orders passed by Public Information Officer. The contention of petitioner that order of refusal

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.8085 of 2024

¶32

passed by respondent will not fall within four corners of said act can be agitated before the appellate authority and second Appellate Authority constituted under the Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶33

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to file an appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The said Authority shall entertain the same and disposed it of in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

06.01.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm

¶35

Note:-The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after getting necessary endorsement.

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.8085 of 2024

¶39

¶40

The Public Information Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Foreshore Estate Division (FSE DN) Tamilnadu Housing Board 485, Annasalai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶41

5/6

¶42

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

W.P.No.8085 of 2024

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.8085 of 2024

¶47