Thanigaivelan v. The State Information Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Thanigaivelan .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State Information Commissioner, O/o. The State Information Commissioner, No.379, Kamathenu Palporul Angadi, 1st Floor, Tenampettai, Chennai-18.
2.The Appellate Officer/Superintendent of Police, Appellate Authority (RTI Act), District Police Office Campus, Madurai District.
3.The Public Information Office/ The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District.
.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to dispose of the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act dated 10.06.2024 in accordance with law within a specific time limit as specified by this Court.
For Petitioner :
Mr.B.Vinoth Kumar For Respondent-1 :
Mr.Raghuvaran Gopalan For R2 & R3 :
Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the first respondent to dispose of the Second Appeal filed by him under the Right to Information Act dated 10.06.2024 in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner would submit that he had sought certain details from the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai with reference to an unregistered agreement dated 23.03.2022 said to have been executed by him with one Murugan. The petitioner had filed a copy application, but the Court refuses to give the document, as the said Murugan had not filed the original document before the Court and had directed the petitioner to file an application before the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner had sought the very same document from the third respondent, which was not responded to. Therefore, a first appeal was filed before the second respondent on 16.04.2024. Once again since no action was taken,
the petitioner has filed second appeal before the first respondent on 10.06.2024. However, there is no progress. Therefore, the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent has been flooded with several appeals and is disposing of matters as per their sequence.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. Since the request of the petitioner is for a document, which is stated to have been executed by him and which document he denies and the petitioner has come to Court alleging fraud and fabrication, this writ petition is allowed and the second appeal is directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible not later than within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. NCC : Yes/No 04.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr
To 1.The State Information Commissioner, O/o. The State Information Commissioner, No.379, Kamathenu Palporul Angadi, 1st Floor, Tenampettai, Chennai-18.
2.The Appellate Officer/Superintendent of Police, Appellate Authority (RTI Act), District Police Office Campus, Madurai District.
3.The Public Information Office/ The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District.
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr Dated: 04.10.2024