Sarashwathi v. The Tamilnadu Information Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER Sarashwathi ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. The Tamilnadu Information Commissioner, No.19, Government Farm House, Burnpet, (Behind Pension Pay Office), Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

2. The Public Information Appellate Authority, The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kalkulam, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

3. The Public Information Officer, The Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kalkulam, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the first respondent in S.A.No.15574/B/2023 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to furnish all the information sough for in the petitioner's RTI Application.

1/5

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Veeravelpandi For Respondents :Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh for R1 Mr.B.Ramanathan Addl. Government Pleader for R2 & R3

O R D E R

Challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.08.2025, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to furnish all the information sought in the petitioner's RTI application.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second appeal in S.A. No. 15574/B/2023 was filed by the petitioner and that the same came to be rejected solely on the ground of non-production of a reply. However, the petitioner contends that the reply had in fact been filed on 23.07.2025.

3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner had not filed her reply within the stipulated time and therefore, the first respondent rejected the second appeal. 2/5

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

5. The impugned order pertains to a second appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. The second appeal was rejected on the ground that no reply was submitted by the petitioner. However, the petitioner claims to have submitted the reply.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and since the second appeal was rejected solely on the ground of non-submission of the reply, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, on the basis of the petitioner's reply dated 23.07.2025. The petitioner is also directed to furnish a copy of the reply dated 23.07.2025 to the first respondent.

3/5

7. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

(K.SURENDER, J) 12.12.2025 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN To

1. The Tamilnadu Information Commissioner, No.19, Government Farm House, Burnpet, (Behind Pension Pay Office), Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

2. The Public Information Appellate Authority, The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kalkulam, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

3. The Public Information Officer, The Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kalkulam, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

4/5

K.SURENDER, J.

PKN 12.12.2025 5/5