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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 32143

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Dr Justice ANITA SUMANTH
A.Devaki, – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu State – Respondent
WP/14581/2015



The Central or the State Commission have no jurisdiction to add to the exhaustive grounds of default mentioned in the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act.

Headnote:

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT - PENALTY - [SUMMARY] The High Court of Madras set aside the orders of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission imposing a penalty on the petitioners, who were District Child Protection Officers, for failing to provide information under the Right to Information Act. The Court held that the orders were vitiated by lack of reasoning and did not consider the detailed explanations put forth by the petitioners.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were District Child Protection Officers, rejected an emergent request for information under the Right to Information Act on the ground that there was no urgency that warranted immediate response within 48 hours and that the information shall be sent to her within the statutory period of 30 days. An appeal was filed before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, which imposed a penalty on the petitioners under Section 20 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned orders were vitiated by lack of reasoning and did not consider the detailed explanations put forth by the petitioners. The Court further held that the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission had no jurisdiction to add to the exhaustive grounds of default mentioned in the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act.

Issues: Whether the orders of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission imposing a penalty on the petitioners were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Manohar Vs State of Maharastra and others [2012 (13) SCC 14], which held that the Central or the State Commission have no jurisdiction to add to the exhaustive grounds of default mentioned in the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act. The Court also held that the impugned orders did not consider the detailed explanations put forth by the petitioners.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the orders of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission imposing a penalty on the petitioners.

W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &

M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 06.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &

M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015

A.Devaki

... Petitioner in W.P.No.14581 of 2015

C.Ashok Kumar

... Petitioner in W.P.No.14582 of 2015

Vs

1.The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission,

Rep. by its Registrar,

Kamadhenu Super Market,

First Floor, Old No.278, New No.373,

Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

2.R.Kalaiselvi

... Respondents in both W.P.s'

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in case

No.39962/Enquiry/D/2014 (33432/D/2014) dated 20.02.2015 on the file of the

Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and quash the same.

(In all W.P.'s)

For Petitioners

: Mr.J.Venkataraman

For Respondents

: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan

Standing Counsel – R1

Mr.T.Gowthaman – R2

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &

M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015

COMMON ORDER

A common order is passed in these writ petitions seeing as both

petitioners challenge orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Information

Commission/R1 imposing a penalty under Section 20 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (in short 'Act'). The petitioners were holding the position

of District Child Protection Officers in the District Child Protection Unit at

Korimedu, Salem.

2.While so, the second respondent worked in the same unit as a

protection officer on contractual basis. Certain difficulties arose qua the

petitioners and R2 and the petitioners were of the view that the contract of the

second respondent was liable to be terminated on the ground of serious

deficiencies in her service. The termination of contract was challenged by R2

by way of a writ petition that came to be allowed as against the termination

order passed in W.P.No.23399 of 2013 on 23.08.2013.

3.The present petitioners have filed writ appeal in W.A.No.932/2014 and

by order dated 28.08.2014, the Division Bench of this Court has granted a stay

of the order of the learned Single Judge. On 21.08.2013, R2 had made an

application to access certain information contained in file No.6/2013 dated

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &

M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015

29.07.2013. She also sought certain other documents to be furnished to her

within 48 hours.

4.The petitioner as a Public Information Officer of the District Child

Protection Unit rejected the emergent request on 23.08.2013, on the ground that

there was no urgency that warranted immediate response within 48 hours and

that the information shall be sent to her within the statutory period of 30 days.

5.An appeal came to be filed by the petitioner before R1 on 22.10.2013.

It was only in the course of the proceedings before R1 that the material sought

for was supplied to R2 and thus in the course of their order, R1 has proceeded

to impose penalty under Section 20 of the Act as well. The procedure envisaged

under Section 19 in respect to imposition of penalty has no doubt been

followed in that, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioners prior to

passing of the impugned order.

6.The petitioners are also seen to have submitted detailed responses,

referred to in the covering letter dated 14.10.2014. The impugned orders,

however, wherein the Commissioner has proposed to impose penalty of a sum

of Rs.7,500/- in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.14581 of 2015 and

Rs.25,000/- in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.14582 of 2015 do not

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &

M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015

consider the submissions in detail and Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned

Standing counsel would fairly agree. The impugned orders are thus vitiated by

lack of reasoning and are thus set asid

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