S.Karpagam v. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :10.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and WMP (MD) Nos.22676 and 22677 of 2025 S.Karpagam

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Represented by the Assistant Registrar, Block No.19, Government Farm Village, Pernpet, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Ramanathapuram Zone, Vandikkara Street, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Venkataraman Parthasarathy

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to 1/5

the impugned order in Case No.SA-14581/SCIC/2022 dated 01.08.2025 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal in so far as recommendation for initiation of department action against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh Standing counsel for R1 Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate for R2 No appearance for R3

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the first respondent, directing the initiation of a departmental inquiry against the petitioner for not furnishing a reply to the query raised by the third respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Public Information Officer in the office of the second 2/5

respondent. The letter seeking information under the RTI Act was filed by the third respondent. Since no reply was furnished by the petitioner, the third respondent approached the first respondent. The first respondent, after conducting a preliminary inquiry, found that the information was not provided and directed the initiation of action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner did not hold the office at the relevant time and had provided an explanation to the first respondent in this regard. However, without considering the same, the first respondent passed the impugned order.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the departmental proceedings have already been initiated and are underway, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can raise all his contentions during the course of the inquiry. Questions of fact, such as whether the petitioner was responsible for not furnishing the information or any other defense taken by the petitioner, can only be determined during the inquiry proceedings. In view of the same, no prima facie error is found in the impugned order.

3/5

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(K.SURENDER, J) 10.12.2025 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN To

1. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Represented by the Assistant Registrar, Block No.19, Government Farm Village, Pernpet, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Ramanathapuram Zone, Vandikkara Street, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

K.SURENDER, J.

PKN 10.12.2025 5/5