2026:MHC:317 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WP No. 19171 of 2014 The Central Public Information Officer, Madras High Court, Chennai ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Central Information Commission, Rep.by its Registrar, Room No.306, 2^nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranthi Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066

2. A.Sethu Old No.68, Bajanai Koil Street, Chollaimedu, Chennai-94 ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the Proceedings of the 1^st respondent in its File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000863 & 847 dated 11.1.2013 and quash the same For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For Respondent(s): Mr.Madhana Gopala Rao Senior Central Government Standing Counsel (for R1)

R2 – no appearance

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Central Public Information Officer of this Court challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission/R1 in relation to a complaint filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘Act’) by R2.

2. We have heard Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Madanagopal Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for R1. There is no appearance for the second respondent.

3. The trajectory that the matter is taken is as follows. R2 had preferred a request before the Public Information Officer on 21.03.2007 seeking certain information from the petitioner herein. Though we do not have the benefit of the request that was preferred, in effect, the information sought was in regard to certain complaints made as against an officer in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as ‘third party’). The request of R2 seems to have been disposed partly vide letter dated 23.11.2011.

4. On 19.09.2011, R2 preferred an appeal before the Public Information Officer reiterating his request, and seeking reasons for the delay in furnishing of the complete information. On 23.11.2011, the petitioner writes to R2 in the following terms:

R.O.C.No.2592/2011/RTI DATE:23.11.2011 From Thiru. V. Devanathan, B.A., M.L., Deputy Registrar (R.T.I. Act) / APIO, High Court, Madras - 600 104.

To Thiru.A. Sethu, S/o Thiru. Annamalai, 9/206, Venkateshwara Lane, Choolaimedu, Chennai - 600 094.

Sir, Sub: The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Furnishing of information – Reg.

Ref: 1. Your petition dated 19.09.2011.

2. Your Appeal petition dated 15.11.2011.

*****

With reference to one of your sales of petitions under the Right to Information Act cited in the references, I am to inform you as follows:

Query No.1 - The information sought by you in your petition dated 21.03.2007 has already been furnished.

Query Nos.2 & 3 - Information has been called for from records section and will be furnished as soon as the same is received from the records section.

Query Nos.4(i) to - No opinion can be offered on

4(iii) hypothetical questions.

Query No.4(iv) - Copies of the documents sought have been called for from the Vigilance Cell.

Query Nos.5 & 6 - Information has been called for from Vigilance Cell.

Query Nos.7(i) & - The question of Section 22 of 7(ii) the RTI Act overriding the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules does not arise as long as there is a provision for dissemination of information by way of supply of judicial records.

Query No.7(iii) - No opinion can be offered on hypothetical questions.

Yours faithfully, sd/-

Deputy Registrar (R.T.I.Act)/A.P.I.O.

5. This was followed up by a further communication dated 05.01.2012, as follows:

R.O.C.No.2592/2011/RTI DATE:05.01.2012 From Thiru. V. Devanathan, B.A., M.L., Deputy Registrar (R.T.I. Act) / APIO, High Court, Madras - 600 104.

To Thiru.A. Sethu, S/o Thiru. Annamalai, 9/206, Venkateshwara Lane, Choolaimedu, Chennai - 600 094.

Sir, Sub: The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Furnishing of informa