M.Adhimoolam Vs The Chief Information commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

M.Adhimoolam Vs The Chief Information commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No further relief; the writ petition was closed without costs upon the 4th respondent's compliance with the CIC order dated 19.09.2025 - the Statement of Accounts ending 31.12.2023 was handed over satisfying Point No.10, and counsel undertook to share the equitable mortgage deed (Point No.3) the same day. No penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act was recorded as imposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 2 to 4 were obliged to furnish the information sought under the RTI application dated 24.11.2023, specifically Point No.3 (copy of equitable mortgage deed) and Point No.10 (working capital statement of Account No.03A06 from 18.05.1999 till 24.11.2023), which remained unfurnished beyond the time specified under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act despite the CIC order dated 19.09.2025. +1 more

Court's answer

The Statement of Accounts ending 31.12.2023 furnished by Mr.P.Dinesh, counsel for respondents 2 to 4, satisfies the information sought by the petitioner under Point No.10 of the RTI application.

Ratio / Principle

Since the 4th respondent has complied with the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the 1st respondent (Central Information Commission) in its entirety, the writ petition stands closed with no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RTI - non-furnishing of information - writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to furnish documents sought by application dated 24.11.2023 (Point No.3: copy of equitable mortgage deed; Point No.10: 2nd Loan Working Capital Statement of Account No.03A06 from 18.05.1999 till 24.11.2023) and penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act on respondents 2 to 4 (PIPDIC, Puducherry). The Central Information Commission, by order dated 19.09.2025 (File No.CIC/UTPON/A/2024/110731), had directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information for Points 3 and 10 within three weeks, but it was not furnished. On 16.02.2026, counsel for respondents 2 to 4 handed over the Statement of Accounts ending 31.12.2023, satisfying Point No.10, and undertook to share the equitable mortgage deed the same day. Holding that the 4th respondent had complied with the CIC order in its entirety, the Court closed the writ petition with no costs; no penalty under Section 20 was imposed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 16.02.2026

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

W.P.No.4121 of 2026

M.Adhimoolam

...Petitioner

Versus 1.The Chief Information Commissioner, RTI Commission, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067.

2.Tmt.P.Ragini General Manager cum 2^nd Appellate Authority, (Administration), PIPDIC, No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry.

3.Thiru.P.T.Rudra Goud, Managing Director cum First Appellate Authority, PIPDIC, No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

4.The Public Information Officer, The Managing Director, PIPDIC, No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

...Respondents

1/6

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

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to furnish the documents under the RTI Act Application date on 24.11.2023 subsequently the respondents 2 to 4 has not furnished information within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act and consequently, to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act to the above respondents 2 to 4.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Maharajan For Respondent – 1 : Ms.Sangeetha for Mr.Venkatasamy Babu, Central Govt. Standing Counsel

For Respondents – 2 to 4 : Mr.P.Dinesh for Mr.D.Ravichander

ORDER

The petitioner, vide Application dated 24.11.2023, requested the copy

of 10 loan documents from the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent vide Reply dated 09.01.2024, furnished the documents sought by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not satisfied with the reply sent by the 4^th respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed a First Appeal before the 3^rd respondent. The said First Appeal was disposed of on 23.02.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Second Appeal before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent, vide Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing File No.CIC/UTPON/A/2024/110731, directed the 4^th respondent to furnish the 2/6

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

information sought by the petitioner as per the records available with them, with respect to Point No.3 & Point No.10, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Despite the said directions, the 4^th respondent did not furnish the information sought by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

When this matter came up on 11.02.2026, Mr.Venkatasamy Babu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel took notice on behalf of 1^st respondent and Ms.V.Usha, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) took notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) made a statement that the information sought by the petitioner will be furnished by 16.02.2026 i.e., today. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 16.02.2026.

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.P.Dinesh, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Ravichander for respondents 2 to 4, submitted that the information which were sought by the petitioner had been furnished much earlier. The information sought by the petitioner with respect to Point No.3 & Point No.10 are as follows:

Point No.3 : Copy of equitable mortgaged deed

3/6

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

Point No.10: 2^nd Loan Working Capital Statement of Account No.03A06 from 18.05.1999 till 24.11.2023.

Though the information had already been furnished, today,

Mr.P.Dinesh has furnished the Statement of Accounts, which ends with 31.12.2023 to Mr.V.Maharajan, learned counsel for petitioner. This satisfies the information sought by the petitioner in Point No.10. Insofar as the information sought by the petitioner in Point No.3 is concerned, Mr.P.Dinesh states that he will share the equitable mortgage deed with the petitioner by the end of the day.

Since the 4^th respondent has complied the Order dated 19.09.2025 passed by 1^st respondent in entirety, this Writ Petition stands closed. No costs.

16.02.2026

mrr

Index: Yes/No

Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

4/6

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

To

1.The Chief Information Commissioner, RTI Commission, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067.

2.Tmt.P.Ragini

General Manager cum 2^nd Appellate Authority, (Administration), PIPDIC, No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry.

3.Thiru.P.T.Rudra Goud, Managing Director cum First Appellate Authority, PIPDIC,

No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

4.The Public Information Officer, The Managing Director, PIPDIC,

No.60, Romain Rolland Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

5/6

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

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

mrr

W.P.No.4121 of 2026

16.02.2026

6/6

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