A. Devarajan v. The Public Information Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.08.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD)No.13976 of 2015 A.Devarajan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Public Information Officer/Deputy Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Public Information Officer/Assistant Director (Panchayats) Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Public Information Officer/Deputy Block Development Officer, (Panchayat Union) Authoor Office at Sembatti, Dindigul District.
... Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to pass an order or Direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned communication made by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1692/15/B2 dated 23.07.15 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to supply the information as sought for by the petitioner through his application dated 25.06.2015 within the time stipulated as prescribed by this Court. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Anand For Rr - 1 & 2 :
Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate For R - 3 :
Mr.T.R.Janarthanan Addl.Govt.Pleader
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned communication made by the third respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1692/15/B2 dated 23.07.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to supply the information as sought for by the petitioner through his application dated 25.06.2015.
2. Mr.M.Rajarajan learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the third respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a practising Advocate, attached with Dindigul Bar Association. He has got reliable information that large scale of fraud has taken place in the office of Ambadurai Panchayat. He also came to know that in most of the schemes directed to be implemented by the Central Government, such fraud has taken place and since he is a service minded social activist, he had decided to initiate necessary action against the concerned persons. For that purpose, he decided to get some documents relating to such scheme and therefore, he sought for particulars by giving an application on 25.06.2015 to all the respondents under the provisions of Right to Information Act. But the petitioner has not received any information as sought for and as a result, he approached the first respondent.
The first respondent vide his letter No.17364/para4/2015-1, directed the second respondent to supply all the information within the stipulated time. Even then, the second respondent has not furnished particulars and the third respondent has sent a reply to the petitioner vide his communication in Na.Ka.No.1692/15/B2 dated 23.07.2015. Through the said reply also, the petitioner has not got any information as requested by him. The only reason assigned by the third respondent for not furnishing the particulars is that there is no sufficient man power and the information sought for by the petitioner has to be collected from various documents which are voluminous. Therefore, it is not possible to furnish all the particulars.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner has asked more than 60 particulars and for furnishing the said particulars, various documents, ledgers and communications etc., have to be gone through and the respondents have to spend a long time and there is no sufficient man power to collect all the related records and give necessary particulars as sought for by the petitioner. He would also submit that for completing all the process and furnishing particulars, a long time may be given to the respondents.
5. I find some justification in the submission made by the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the process of collecting all the particulars will take a long time and therefore, by giving sufficient time, the third respondent can be directed as follows:
The third respondent is directed to furnish all the particulars as sought for by the petitioner within a
period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. The petitioner is also directed to pay necessary cost for the same.
6.With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar mj To 1.The Public Information Officer/Deputy Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Public Information Officer/Assistant Director (Panchayats) Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Public Information Officer/Deputy Block Development Officer, (Panchayat Union) Authoor Office at Sembatti, Dindigul District.
+1cc to MR.R.ANAND, ADVOCATE SR NO.44414 +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR NO.44576 Writ Petition (MD)No.13976 of 2015 06.08.2015 RG.19.08.2015 3P.6C