V.Krishnamurthi v. The Chief Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI V.Krishnamurthi ... Petitioner Vs.
The Chief Commissioner, State Information Commission, No.19, Government Farm Village, Pernpet, Nandhanam, Chennai - 600 035.
... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent commission to immediately dispose of all the 36 second appeals/reviews filed by the petitioner, pending on its file, which is tabled under paragraph No.8 of the affidavit imposing penalty based on the representation dated 11.02.2025. For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondent :
Mr.C.Vigneswaran 1/4
ORDER
Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent commission to immediately dispose of all the 36 second appeals/reviews filed by him, which are tabled under paragraph No.8 of the affidavit imposing penalty based on his representation dated 11.02.2025.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he was a Retired Deputy Block Development Officer under the Government of Tamil Nadu and he is the life member of 'Uzhal Ethirpu Eyakkam'. The petitioner has been creating awareness about public cause and making several applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information for the welfare of the people. In this regard, if there is no reply from the concerned public information officers to his RTI applications or if the reply is not sufficient or evasive, the petitioner would prefer an appeal to the appropriate appellate 2/4
authority under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. While so, several requests regarding public cause had been neglected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred several appeals, reviews and second appeals. Since the same have not been disposed of, he has come forward before this Court with the above direction.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since several requests regarding public cause had been neglected, the petitioner preferred several appeals, reviews and second appeals. Since the same have not been disposed of, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for appropriate orders.
5.This Court perused the entire records and the affidavit filed in support of this petition. In paragraph No.8 of the affidavit, the petitioner has given certain information with regard to the pendency of the Second Appeals, Petitions and Cases filed before the concerned public authorities. It is seen that the information sought for by him in various other Second Appeals, Petitions and Cases are different in nature. Since the relief sought for by him in various other Second Appeals, Petitions and Cases are 3/4
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
vga different in nature and the relief sought for by him in those Second Appeals, Petitions and Cases have also not been mentioned, this Court cannot entertain this type of petition, filed by the petitioner, which involves omnibus prayer. This Court cannot verify about the relief sought for in each and every cases, pending before the various authorities and this Court cannot issue directions to each and every authorities, involved in various other Second Appeals, Petitions and Cases, since this petition is filed seeking omnibus prayer. As this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 22.09.2025 vga To The Chief Commissioner, State Information Commission, No.19, Government Farm Village, Pernpet, Nandhanam, Chennai - 600 035.
4/4