Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

A.Rajanayagam vs The Public Information Officer

Madras High Court|27 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Case No.28788/R4/2010 dated 06.12.2010 on the file of the Tamilnadu Information Commission, Chennai and quash the same and consequently directing the Respondent to provide eight information sought for vide petitioner's application dated 19.07.2010, within a time stipulated by this Court.
2.Heard both side.
3.Though the petitioner has come out with the above said prayer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions that as against the order dated 19.07.2010, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, where they have passed order on 06.12.2010, directing the petitioner to approach the Public Information Officer of the Office of the Joint Director, Higher Education to get necessary documents to the extent which are required by the petitioner and therefore, if a direction is given to the respondent, permitting the petitioner to seek only copies of the documents which are actually in need of the petitioner to pursue his legal issues pertaining to get service benefits for him, the petitioner is ready and willing to go before the respondent authority and after having inspection and discussion, the petitioner would restrict only with the actual required documents from the office of the respondent.
3.Heard Mr.V.Muruganantham, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in this regard.
4.Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction:
(I) The petitioner shall approach the respondent by appearing before him in person and once the petitioner approaches the respondent office, an officer in charge dealing with the Public Information files of the respondent office be deputed to have a discussion with the petitioner and after having discussion and perusal of the relevant documents/files, the petitioner shall restrict documents which are actually in need by the petitioner and for those documents alone photostat copies can be taken at the cost of the petitioner and be given to the petitioner.
(ii) The needful as directed above shall be done by the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) It is need less to state that once the petitioner approaches the respondent office and after having inspection the petitioner's list of required documents is given, the cost to be immediately paid by the petitioner and on such payment those documents shall be given to the petitioner as indicated above.
No costs.
To The Public Information Officer, Office of Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education), College Road, Chennai ? 600 006.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

A.Rajanayagam vs The Public Information Officer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
27 February, 2017