BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY G.Joseph Thinesh ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State Chief Information Commissioner, Office of the Chief Information Commission, Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.

2. The Appellate Authority / Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, District Collectorate Campus, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Public Information Officer / Executive Officer (i/c), Panagudi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to furnish the certified copies of the documents and information sought in the RTI Application dated 19.07.2024 and consequently direct the second respondent to ensure strict compliance with the Urgent Memo in Na.Ka. No.4203/2024/U5 dated 30.10.2024 by supervising the immediate release of the requested records.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar For R-1 : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh Standing Counsel For R-2 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to furnish certified copies of the documents and information sought in the RTI Application dated 19.07.2024 and consequently directing the second respondent to ensure strict compliance with the Urgent Memo in Na.Ka.No.4203/2024/U5 dated 30.10.2024 by supervising the immediate release of the requested records.

2. The petitioner sought information regarding sequential particulars of all works executed by the petitioner's Firm Dinesh Construction, specific names of the awarded works, completion dates and financial payments received, office audit reports for the financial year 2012-2013 through. 2018-2019 and detailed records of the petitioner's unsuccessful tenders, including bid amounts and the current status of Earnest Money Deposits (EMD). The third respondent has not provided the particulars, however directed the petitioner physically visit the office on 02.09.2024 or 06.09.2024 to inspect the files and take manual notes.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the said direction is violative of RTI Act, which mandates that information should be provided. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who in turn directed the third respondent to provide all the particulars through Na.Ka.No.4203/2024/U5 dated 30.10.2024. In spite of the said direction, the third respondent has not provided the same. Agreed over the same, the petitioner had submitted a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner represented by its Registrar. Since no action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent had been wrongly described and that the appropriate authority should be the State Information Commission, represented by its Registrar, Thenampettai, Anna Salai. The said submission is recorded.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that reasonable time may be granted for furnishing the requested information.

6. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted the petitioner shall appear before the third respondent, identify the records and seek certified copies of the said records, since it is a huge volume.

7. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the third respondent and identify the records for which certified copies are required. Thereafter, the petitioner shall pay necessary cost for the xerox copies and furnish the same. The said procedures shall be followed by the respondents. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8.