Malaithai v. The Honble Central Information Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU T.Malaithai ..

Appellant Vs.

1. The Central Information Commissioner Central Information Commission R.No.326, C - Wing, 2nd Floor August Kranthi Bhavan Bhikaji Vcama Placa New Delhi - 110 066.

2. The State Information Commissioner Tamil Nadu Information Commission No.2, Theagaraya Salai Near Aalai Amman Koil Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

3. The Public Information Officer cum Commissioner of Police Palayamkottai, Thiruvelveli.

..

Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.59 of 2018 dated 13.01.2020.

For the Appellant : Ms.R.S.Maitreya For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R2 & R3

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Ms.R.S.Maitreya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

2. The appellant is challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, where, the petitioner / appellant is challenging the order passed by the State Information Commissioner, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner / appellant for information.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is independently entitled for the information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The reason given is erroneous.

4. The husband of the appellant has sought for the information in the year 2015 with regard to the selection process to the post of Police Constable Grade II, conducted in the year 1989-1990. The information was given that he had not duly passed the examination and that the other information sought by him are the informations relevant to the period 25 and 17 years ago and since the documents were destroyed by that time, the same could not be provided.

5. Now, again the wife asking the same information is certainly not warranted. The selection process had taken place thirty three years back.

6. In the light of that, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, as such, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 10.07.2023 Index : Yes/No drm

To

1. The Central Information Commissioner Central Information Commission R.No.326, C - Wing, 2nd Floor August Kranthi Bhavan Bhikaji Vcama Placa New Delhi - 110 066.

2. The State Information Commissioner Tamil Nadu Information Commission No.2, Theagaraya Salai Near Aalai Amman Koil Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

3. The Public Information Officer cum Commissioner of Police Palayamkottai, Thiruvelveli.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(drm) 10.07.2023