← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/21888/2018dismissed as infructuous

C.S.C.Sivakumar, v. The State Chief Information

2024-04-04Honourable Mr Justice C. Saravanan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.04.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN C.S.C.Sivakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State Chief Information Commissioner, Door No.2, Thiyarajar Salai, Near Aanaiamman Kovil, Teyampet, Chennai.

2.First Appellate Officer, Tirunelveli Zonal Town Panchayat Assistant Director Office, District Collector Office Campus, 3rd Floor, Korampallam, Tuticorin District.

3.The Public Information Officer, Town Panchayat Office, Perungulam, Tuticorin.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to provide the information sought by the petitioner, as per his petition under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, dated 24.02.2018, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court, as per the provisions in the Right to Page No. 1 of 4

Information Act, 2005, and to direct the third respondent to compensate the petitioner by way of penalty a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] as per the provisions under Section 19(8)(b)(c) and 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 : Mr.K.K.Senthil For R2 : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader For R3 : No Appearance

O R D E R

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that pending Writ Petition, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was disposed by the first respondent, vide order 19.11.2018, in S.A.No.7875/D/2018, by directing the third respondent to furnish the required information.

3. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition has been rendered infructuous and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

Page No. 2 of 4

4. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous in the light of the subsequent order passed by the first respondent as mentioned above. No costs.

04.04.2024 Index : Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order smn2 To 1.The State Chief Information Commissioner, Door No.2, Thiyarajar Salai, Near Aanaiamman Kovil, Teyampet, Chennai.

2.First Appellate Officer, Tirunelveli Zonal Town Panchayat Assistant Director Office, District Collector Office Campus, 3rd Floor, Korampallam, Tuticorin District.

3.The Public Information Officer, Town Panchayat Office, Perungulam, Tuticorin.

Page No. 3 of 4

C.SARAVANAN , J.

smn2 04.04.2024 Page No. 4 of 4