Madras High CourtWP/33242/2018disposed of

R.Ramarao v. The Commissioner

2018-12-17Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.12.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.33242 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.38579 of 2018 P.Ramarao

...Petitioner

1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation/Public Information Officer Chennai-600 003.

2. The Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer Storm Water Drain Department Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

3. The Superintendenting Engineer/Public Information officer Zone-15, Greater Chennai Corporation Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.

4. The Superintending Engineering Bus Route Roads Department Chennai-600 003.

5. The Superintending Engineer Buildings Department Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

6. The Superintending Engineer Solid Waste Management Department Chennai-600 003.

7. The Finance Adviser Finance Management Unit Chennai-600 003. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from furnishing or inspecting the documents mentioned in the letter 26.10.2018 and 19.11.2018 on the file of the respondents with regard to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act to any other third party.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Doraisamy

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed seeking for mandamus forbearing the respondents from furnishing or inspecting the documents mentioned in the letters 26.10.2018 and 19.11.2018 on the file of the respondents with regard to the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is a registered Class-I contractor in the Chennai Corporation, Public Works Department and the State Level Contractor in the Tamil Nadu Highways Department. The petitioner is doing the contractual works for over several years. One Jayaram Venkatesan and one H.Chandrabose, had preferred applications dated 10.11.2018 and 10.10.2018, to the second respondent under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, to furnish certain information regarding work completion certificate from the year 2014 to 2018 for the work executed by the petitioner. On receipt of such applications from those persons, the second respondent through letter dated 19.11.2018, sent a communication to the petitioner stating that the petitioner had been awarded the work of construction of storm water drain under CMCDM 2018 scheme and one M/s.

Arappor Iyakkam, an NGO has requested details with regard to the petitioner's tender details and other documents of the tender, which includes the petitioner's personal details like Bank Accounts etc., under the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the petitioner was called upon to give his opinion, under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 for sharing all the information. The petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 5 days. The petitioner filed an objection on 29.11.

furnish any tender details and other associated documents, which includes his personal details like bank balance, income tax returns etc., since the information sought for by those persons cannot be furnished under the RTI Act, 2005 and those persons have no right to access the documents relating to any individual and hence, the notice issued by the second respondent is arbitrary and illegal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner has made their objections against furnishing those documents sought for under the RTI Act, 2005, even before considering the objections, these respondents may release those information to the said persons. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to maintain the present writ petition before this Court.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the materials placed before this Court, more particularly, the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is totally mis-conceived, in view of the fact that the RTI applications are pending before the concerned RTI authority and admittedly, the petitioner has also made his objections dated 29.11.2018 before such authority against providing the information sought for. When such being the position, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to seek for mandamus as stated in this writ petition, especially, when the fact remains that the RTI authority is yet to pass any order in the RTI applications.

If any order is passed by the RTI authority, then only the petitioner may have a cause of action, if such order is passed adversely against his interest. Therefore, I find that the prayer sought for in this writ petition is totally misconceived and pre-mature. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the RTI authority in pursuant to the objections raised already under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation/Public Information Officer Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

2. The Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer Storm Water Drain Department Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

3. The Superintendenting Engineer/Public Information officer Zone-15, Greater Chennai Corporation Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.

4. The Superintending Engineering Bus Route Roads Department Chennai-600 003.

5. The Superintending Engineer Buildings Department Chennai-600 003.

6. The Superintending Engineer Solid Waste Management Department Chennai-600 003.

7. The Finance Adviser Finance Management Unit Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

+1cc to Mr.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.87517 W.P.No.33242 of 2018 mg(CO) SSM(02/01/2019)