Madras High CourtWP(MD)/17487/2017dismissed

S.Cedric Stanley v. The Director General Of

2019-06-26Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.(MD)No.17487 of 2017 S.Cedric Stanley : Petitioner

Versus

1. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Dr.Rathakrishnan Road, Chennai.

2. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Puthunatham Road, Madurai.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

5. Thiru.Suruliyandi, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

6. Thiru.Sugumaran, The Inspector of Police, Villampatty Circle, Dindugul District.

7. James Rathinamani

8. Eby Stanley : Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.5,6,7 and 8 on the basis of the petition submitted by the petitioner dated 29.03.2017 and on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari case reported in 2014(2) SCC 1 in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents 1to6 : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor ****

O R D E R

The prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is as follows:

"Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.5,6,7 and 8, on the basis of the petition submitted by the petitioner dated 29.03.2017 and on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari case reported in 2014(2) SCC 1 in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, regarding enquiry conducted on the complaint given by the petitioner against the seventh and eighth respondents. Now, the present Writ Petition has been filed to take action against the respondents 5 to 8, based on the petition submitted by the petitioner dated 29.03.2017.

3. A perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner dated 29.03.2017, would go to show that the above petition has been filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking for certain information. If at all the information is not furnished to the petitioner, a remedy is available to him to file an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005. For that, he cannot file a Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

4. Apart from that, Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submitted that the information sought for by the petitioner has already been furnished to him.

5. In the above circumstances, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) SML