K.Dilli Babu v. State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.NO.7106 OF 2021 K.Dilli Babu ... Petitioner -vs1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commission, No.2, Thiyagaraja Salai, Nearby Aalayammn Kovil, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The District Revenue Officer, O/o.the District Revenue Office, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
3. The Public Information Officer, Assistant to the District Collector (G) O/o. District Collector Office, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to furnish the require information as per the Right to Information Application dated 24.04.2020 submitted by the petitioner and also further direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for the mental agony caused to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal for R1 Mr.M.Elumalai, (for R2 to R3) Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is field, seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to furnish the require information as per the Right to Information Application dated 24.04.2020 submitted by
the petitioner and also further direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for the mental agony caused to the petitioner.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the documents asked for by the petitioner have not been furnished in full and the documents produced are not sufficient in its contents. It is further submitted that there is a time limit in furnishing those details as contemplated under the Provisions of Right to Information Act, and the information sought for has not been provided by the 3rd respondent within the statutory period.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
4. On a perusal of documents, it is seen that documents have been furnished which shows that the petitioner has a right to appeal. In this scenario, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to agitate the same before the Appellate Authority.
5. At this stage, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner has already filed second appeal which is pending before the respondent.
6. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the second appellate Authority. The Writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the second appellate Authority and no further orders are required in this Writ Petition. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vum To
1. The Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commission, No.2, Thiyagaraja Salai, Nearby Aalayammn Kovil, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The District Revenue Officer, O/o. the District Revenue Office, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
3. The Public Information Officer, Assistant to the District Collector (G) O/o. District Collector Office, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
+1cc to Mr.M.Gnanasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.25004 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.24608 W.P.No.7106 of 2021 SSI(CO) CS/12/07/2021