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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
K.M.G.HASAN ABDUL CADER – Appellant
Versus
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Mr.K.MG.Hasan Abdul Cader …Petitioner Vs.

1.State Information Commissioner, Block No.19, Government Farm Village, Panepet, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

2.Tahsildhar, No.3, Raja Muthaiah Road, Periyamet Kannapparthidal, Chennai – 600 003.

3.Mumtaz Banu ...Respondents Prayer : This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.B1/2802/2024 dated 29.07.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to act as per the Direction of 1st Respondent vide Order dated 29.07.2025.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ram Pranav For Mr.S.Veeraraghavan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Vigneshwaran (For R1)

Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader (For R2)

O R D E R

Heard Mr.Ram Pranav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.C.Vigneshwaran, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.

2. The plea of the petitioner is that the order passed by the State Information Commission on 06.05.2025 has been violated by the 2nd respondent. He states that the information given by the 2nd respondent is false and misleading. Under Section 18(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act of 2005, the Commission has the power to decide, if there is a violation of its order. While conducting the said exercise, the first respondent also has the power to act like a Civil Court and record evidence in order to satisfy itself as to whether its order has been complied with or not.

3. In a writ petition, this Court cannot embark on the exercise of recording evidence as regards the satisfaction or otherwise of the order passed by the Commission.

4. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to move the first respondent with an appropriate application, stating that its order has not been complied with. No costs.

20.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yest/No Speaking or Non-speaking order kak To

1.State Information Commissioner, Block No.19, Government Farm Village, Panepet, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

2.Tahsildhar, No.3, Raja Muthaiah Road, Periyamet Kannapparthidal, Chennai – 600 003.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kak Dated : 20.11.2025

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