Madras High CourtWP/7187/2013disposed of

Sathyavani, v. The Secretary To Government

2023-04-25Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

1. Sathyavani

2. Chandra

3. K.Mahendran

4. K.Gajendran

5. K.Krishnakumar

6. K.Bhuvanendran

...Petitioners

-Vs1. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The District Collector, Singaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1

3. The Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Greenways Road, Chennai-28.

1/6

4. The Public Information Officer Cum Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Circle, Chennai-28.

5. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Office of the Survey and Settlement Office, "Survey House" Chepauk, Chennai-5.

6. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Marudeeswarar Temple, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

7. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowement Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

8. Public Information Officer, Central Land Survey Office, Chepauk Chennai- 5.

...Respondents

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order viz. the order of the 4th Respondent herein in Proceedings Aa/No.32696/2012-13 dated 26.12.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct to hold enquiry and grant Ryotwari Patta in favour of the Petitioners on the Application filed under Section 11(a) of the Act 26 of 1948 on the file of the 5th Respondent dated 12.12.2012.

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Balaji For Respondents :

(for R1 to R5 & R8) : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, AGP (for R6 & R7) : Mr.A.Karthikeyan 2/6

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order impugned passed by the 4th respondent in proceedings dated 26.12.2012, providing reply to the applications submitted by the writ petitioners under the Right To Information Act.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that though the information was provided to the information seeker/petitioner, it was insufficient and improper. Thus, the petitioner filed an application to amend the prayer in the writ petition. Pertinently, the reply was given by the public information officer through impugned letter dated 26.12.2012 and almost 10 1⁄2 years lapsed. 3.The information provided is that the certain review records are not available in office of the Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk. This being the factum, the petitioner at this length of time need not insist upon the document and if at all, the grievances exist to the petitioner, he is at liberty to file a fresh application under the Right To Information Act, seeking 3/6

informations and in the event of filing any such application, the Public Information Officer concerned shall comply with the request by following the procedures as contemplated under the Right To Information Act. 4.With these observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

(sha) 25.04.2023 Index : Yes Speaking Order 4/6

1. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai-9.