ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the 3rd Respondent’s proceedings in Ka. No. Po.Tha.A/Vu.Se.Po/Podhu/Muthava/Tha.AVuSa. 104/A.No. 2065/dated 22.11.2013 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and against the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and further direct the 1st respondent to initiate appropriate department proceedings against the 3rd respondent for his willful refusal to provide information under the RTI Act and pay compensation to the petitioner.

1. The writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceeding of the third respondent dated 22.11.2013, quash the same and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to initiate appropriate departmental proceeding against the third respondent for his wilful refusal to provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and pay compensation to the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. S.M.A nantha Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. Mr. S.M. Anantha Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a resident of Tuticorin Town. He had approached the third respondent seeking certain details about the electricity connection granted in favour of certain individuals. The third respondent without providing such information, by the impugned communication, had called upon the petitioner to provide documents to substantiate that he is the citizen of India. He would further submit that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) does not require any such proof to be submitted.

4. By placing reliance upon Section 6 of the Act, he would submit that when a person desires to obtain any information, he shall make a request in writing in the official language in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area, in which the application is being made along with the fee prescribed. Section 6(2) of the Act mandates that an applicant making the request shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those details that may be necessary for contacting him. When that be so, the impugned communication calling upon the petitioner to provide documents to substantiate his citizenship is wholly uncalled for. The conduct of the third respondent in calling for such documents is contrary to the object and intent of the Act.

5. Further, he would submit that to deny the information sought for by the petitioner, the third respondent had issued such a communication. Therefore, he is also liable to be punished under the provisions of the Act apart from stating that the petitioner is also entitled for compensation. Hence, he would pray this Court to issue direction to the third respondent to issue the details as prayed for by the petitioner.

6. Countering his argument, Mr. S. Deenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned communication had only called upon the petitioner to substantiate that he is a citizen of India. He would further submit that Section 3 of the Act only entitles a citizen of India to have the right to information. Only in that context, the petitioner was directed to substantiate by production of certain documents that he is the citizen of India. He would further submit that the petitioner has got an appellate remedy under Section 19 of the Act against any decision of the Public Information Officer. Without exhausting the appeal remedy available under Section 19 of the Act, the petitioner had approached this Court. Hence, he would submit that the writ petition will have to be rejected not only on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy but also on the ground that the petitioner is not wanting to comply with the provisions of the Act.

7. He would