IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

W.P.No.27310 of 2010

and

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

P.Soundararajan (retired)

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police,

Erode.

2.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the

order made in Case No.16897/O-8/10 dated 24.08.2010 passed on

30.08.2010 by the State Information Commission and quash the

same and consequently forbear the respondents from recovery the

penalty amount from the petitioner.

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Ethirajulu

For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendiran,

Additional Government Pleader for R1

No appearance for R2

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the

order made in Case No.16897/O-8/10 dated 24.08.2010 passed on

30.08.2010 by the State Information Commission and quash the

same and consequently forbear the respondents from recovery the

penalty amount from the petitioner.

2. The petitioner while in service, working as Public

Information Officer, the 2^nd respondent sought for certain

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

information under the Right to Information Act by an application

dated 31.07.2009 for which the petitioner replied on 28.08.2009,

wherein, it is stated that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1043 Public

(Est.1 & Leg) dated 14.10.2005 No.II(2) PUEL/778/(c)/2005 the

respondent is exempted from purview of the Right to Information

Act.

A perusal of the Government Order issued under

G.O.Ms.No.1043 dated 14.10.2005 disclose that the Economic

Offenses Wing II at Sl.Nos.6 and 7 were exempted from the

purview of the Right to Information Act.

3. In spite of the reply, the 2^nd respondent had

preferred an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission

in case No.16897/Enquity/2009 and the Commission passed an order

on 28.10.2009. According to the Information Commission, as per

Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, proviso (I)

provides that the information pertaining to the allegation of

corruption and human rights violation shall not be excluded

under this sub-Section. Therefore, directed the petitioner to

furnish the information sought for by the applicants. Pursuant

to that the petitioner sent a reply to the Information

Commission and appeared before them for enquiry. Not being

satisfied with the reply, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission

by its order dated 24.08.2010 directed the Superintendent of

Police, Erode to recover the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- from

the Public Information Officer within 6 weeks of the order. It

is pertinent to note that in the mean while the petitioner

retired from service with effect from 28.02.2010. However, he

challenged the impugned order as it was passed against him.

4. Heard the submissions of the petitioner and there is

no appearance for the 2^nd respondent.

5. From a perusal of the application filed under the

Right to Information Act, the informations that were sought for

by the 2^nd respondent are as follows:

a) Did the SP Erode or IGP EOW or any other police

officer attempt to investigate or find out, as to which corrupt

police officers were responsible for committing forgery?

b) Who was the honest police officer who filed the

petition before the special judge under TNPID Act, Chennai in

Crl.M.P.No.1630/03 (Which was challenged by way of revision in

Criminal Revision case No.53/04 in Madras High Court) seeking to

send all deposit cards to the security press at Nasik?

c) Why did the said honest police officer file the said

petition, and under whose authorization wa