SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
R. Vishnu Ram Saravanavel - Appellant
Versus
The State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Teynampet, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 32537 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 23-09-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :C.M. Krishnakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Niranjan Rajagopalan, D. Sathyaraj, Adv

The requirement for a reasoned order dealing with each contention raised by the parties under the RTI Act.

Headnote:

Right to Information Act - Information sought under RTI Act - Section 6(1) - Act Section List: Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Summary: The petitioner sought information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding land registration details and communications related to private forest lands. The First Respondent rejected the Second Appeal stating that complaints, appeals, and grievances cannot be made under the RTI Act, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition challenging the order. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order dealing with each contention raised by the parties.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding land registration details and communications related to private forest lands.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order dealing with each contention raised by the parties.

Issues: The rejection of the Second Appeal under the RTI Act and the need for a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for a reasoned order dealing with each contention raised by the parties under the RTI Act.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the Writ Petition on the terms of setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the First Respondent herein in order No.12732/B/2012, dated 19.04.2012 and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to furnish information (A) to (E) as sought for by the Petitioner in his application dated 14.11.2011 made to the Second Respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court.)

(through video conference)

Heard Mr. C.M.Krishnakumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the First Respondents and Mr. D.Sathyaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Second and Third Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Petitioner had made an application dated 13.07.2011 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the -Act- for short) to the Second Respondent seeking the following information:-

    (A) Total number of Land Registration (Sales/Purchases) that have taken place in the village of Bokkapuram, (Sholur Panchayat) from 15.11.1991 to 01.07.2001.

(B) Names of the Executants and Claimants of each such transaction.

(C) The Document No and Year of each such transaction.

(D) Sale Value of each such transaction.

(E) Value of Stamp duty and Registration charges collected for each such transaction.

(F) Has there been any communication of any kind from the District Collector asking your office to stop registration of Lands that have been notified as “Private Forest“ under the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act - TNPPF (1949) as published in the Nilgiri Gazette Extraordinary, dated 15.11.1991?

(G) If so, provide copies of all such communications.

(H) Has there been any communications of any kind from the Forest Department asking your office to stop registration of Lands that have been notified as “Private Forest“ under the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act - TNPPF (1949) as published in the Nilgiri Gazette Extraordinary, dated 15.11.1991?

(I) If so, provide copies of all such transactions.

(J) Has there been any communications of any kind from any Government Department asking your office to stop registration of Lands that have been notified as “Private Forest“ under the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act - TNPPF (1949) as published in the Nilgiri Gazette Extraordinary, dated 15.11.1991?

(K) If so, provide copies of all such transactions.

3. The Second Respondent by letter dated 27.07.2011 informed the Petitioner that Query Nos. (A) to (E) could be answered only if the Survey Numbers for the properties are furnished, and had provided the available information in respect of Query Nos. (F) to (K). In response thereto, the Petitioner by another letter dated 14.11.2011 furnished the Survey Numbers of the properties for receiving the information in respect of Query Nos. (A) to (E).

4. According to the Petitioner, since no reply was received from the Second Respondent thereafter, he had preferred First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, before the Third Respondent, who had by letter dated 19.01.2012 intimated the Petitioner that he could seek the information under the Registration Act, 1908, instead of resorting to the Act. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, before the First Respondent.

5. The First Respondent, has by Order No. 12732/B/2012 dated 19.04.2012, rejected that Second Appeal stating as follows:-

    “As per the Right to Information Act, “Information” can only be asked. In this case information has been furnished. Based on the information received, complaints, appeals, disputing the basis of the information, queries raised thereon and request for redressal of grievance cannot be made under the RTI Act. It does not come under the purview of the Information Commission. They pertain to the concerned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top