O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the record pertaining to the order made in Order No.SA.2571/Ma/Tha/Tha/A/2016 dated 17.09.2016 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and further directing the 1st respondent to impose the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent under section 20(1) and (2) of Right to Information Act and further to direct the 3rd respondent to provide the petitioner with the correct and complete information.

2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has sought seven informations under Right to Information Act 2005, in respect of the auction conducted by the Chit Company in the month of September 2015, October 2015 and November 2015. Since the 3rd respondent did not furnish some information, the petitioner preferred First Appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 19(1) of Right to Information Act 2005, the same was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General, Chennai. The 2nd respondent also did not take any steps to furnish information sought for by the petitioner. However, the petitioner received a letter dated 26.02.2016 from the 3rd respondent alleging that the information sought for in question numbers 3 to 7 could not be furnished and the petitioner received some documents in respect of question number 1 and 2 vide letter dated 10.03.2016. Therefore, the writ petitioner preferred Second Appeal on 18.03.2016 before the 1st respondent to take action for non-furnishing the information. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had sent a notice dated 06.07.2016 to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent had sent a letter dated 18.07.2016 with some information. The petitioner appeared for enquiry before the 1st respondent on 20.07.2016 and during the course of enquiry, the 3rd respondent furnished a copy of minute book regarding auctions conducted in 1 to 29 chits with false information. Therefore, the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent to furnish the correct information regarding the minute book auctions submitted by M/s.Sriram Chit Company. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 09.08.2016 from the 3rd respondent that he was not in a position to furnish the information as directed by the 1st respondent for the reason their office has been shifted from the office of District Registrar, North Chennai to Wall Tax Road on 16.02.2016 itself and during the course of shifting, the said document sought for has been misplaced and not traceable. Thereafter, on 26.02.2016, the petitioner was directed to approach the 3rd respondent and to pay the required fee to get the information sought by her. Accordingly, on 08.03.2016, the husband of the petitioner was sent to the office of the 3rd respondent situated at District Registrar Office, North Chennai, No.1, Beach Station Road, Chenai 600 001 and paid a sum of Rs.4/- for the purpose of getting information and a receipt was also issued to him on 08.03.2016 to that effect.

3.It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has provided false information to her without any reasonable cause. Hence, the 1st respondent ought to have imposed penalty on the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent for not imposing penalty on the 3rd respondent.

4.Counter has been filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents. In the counter it has been stated that the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 sought information in respect of Chit conducted by M/s.Sriram Chits in Group No.40010/71002/24. The respondents had given reply only in respect of question Nos.1 and 2 and in respect of other queries, the petitioner was directed to contact the concerned chit company.

However, the petitioner has filed a second appeal before the 1st respondent and on the date of enquiry, the 3rd