Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI
Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
State Information Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding rti applications and subsequent commission orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties' contentions on the scope of information commission's powers under the rti act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. limitation on commission's power to appoint pios when public authority already has designated officers. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. requirement of mala fide intent and specific statutory violation for disciplinary recommendations under section 20. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. final order setting aside the impugned directives due to lack of jurisdiction. (Para 29 , 30) |
ORDER :
1. The impugned order in and by which direction has been issued by the 1st respondent appointing the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board as the Public Information and also the further direction in and by which adverse remarks were directed to be entered in the service register of the concerned Teachers/Professors so as to disable them participating in the process of setting question papers and also for taking disciplinary action against them has been questioned before this Court through this writ petition by assailing the said order a
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Sec.20(2) of the RTI Act cannot be mechanically exercised, and the focus should be on whether the necessary information sought....
The imposition of penalty by the State Information Commissioner was held invalid due to lack of statutory authority and necessary procedural safeguards under the Right to Information Act.
Public Information Officers can only be penalized under RTI for failures occurring during their tenure when a request was made, not retroactively for former officers' actions.
The penalty imposed on a deemed Public Information Officer is improper if the designated officer is not notified or held accountable for delays in providing requested information.
The court emphasized the purpose of the Right to Information Act in providing access to information and held that the appointment of PIOs is necessary to ensure compliance with the Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
