M.Ramasubbu v. The Chief Information
W.P.(MD)No.1355 of 2017 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.1355 of 2017 M.Ramasubbu ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commissioner, No.2, Thiyagaraya Salai (Near Allayamman Kovil), Teynampettai, Eldams Road Junction, Chennai - 600 018.
2. The Public Information Officer, Finance (T&A1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 24.10.2016 in SA 9913/F/2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to furnish the information sought by the petitioner and consequently to take action as per Section 20(1) and 20(2) and 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act within the time limit fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For R-1 : Mr.K.K.Senthil, Standing Counsel.
For R-2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate.
* * *
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.
2. The petitioner was the Assistant Accounts Officer on 31.07.1998. He has made a representation on 17.04.2016 to the Secretary, Finance(T&A1) Department for including his name in the promotion panel for the year 1997-98. Since there was no reply, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
W.P.(MD)No.1355 of 2017 sought information under the Right to Information Act on 27.06.2016 as to what has happened to his representation. Reply was given that no representation was received from the petitioner. The petitioner moved the appellate authority and thereafter he moved the Information Commission. The Information Commission also reiterated the stand of the authorities below and informed the petitioner accordingly. Questioning the same, this writ petition came to be filed.
3. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that this is not a case that warrants any interference by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a retired Government employee. He retired in the year 1998. In the year 2016, he felt suddenly inspired and wanted the details for being included in the promotion panel for the year 1997-98. Since almost 18 years have elapsed in the meanwhile, absolutely no purpose will be served even if the petitioner is furnished with the relevant information. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere.
4. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PMU To:
1. The Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commissioner, No.2, Thiyagaraya Salai (Near Allayamman Kovil), Teynampettai, Eldams Road Junction, Chennai - 600 018.
2. The Public Information Officer, Finance (T&A1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
+1 CC to M/s.R.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-24653[F] dated 08/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.K.SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-24720[F] dated 09/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-24866[F] dated 09/06/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.1355 of 2017 08.06.2022 SS(14/06/2022) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2