W.P.(MD)No.17632 of 2014

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 22.04.2022

Delivered On: 02.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

W.P.(MD)No.17632 of 2014

and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014

Ponvelraj

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Information Commissioner,

No.2, Thiyagaraja Salai,

Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

2.The Municipal Commissioner,

Kayalpattinam Municipality,

Kayalpattinam,

Thoothukudi District.

.. Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records

pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in Case

no.47150/Enquiry/D/2011, dated 06.08.2014 and the consequential

order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1308/2011/A1, dated

25.08.2014, quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Thesigan

For Respondents

: Mr.K.K.Senthil for R1

No Appearance for R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order

dated 06.08.2014 and the consequential order, dated 25.08.2014.

2.The petitioner is working as Sanitary Inspector in

Kayalpattinam Municipality. The nature of job assigned to the

petitioner is to keeping the public health and maintain sanitation

in the locality comes under the Municipality. Under the Right to

Information Act, 2005, every public authority should designate

Public Information Officers within 100 days of the enactment of the

Act. Accordingly, the State of Tamil Nadu designated the competent

authorities as Public Information Officers. In the Municipal

Corporation, the Manager was designated as Public Information

Officer and as such they are competent to receive applications and

furnish information under the Right to Information Act. In

Kayalpattinam Municipality the post of Manager was vacant for a long

time and no one was even acting as “In-charge Manager”. The

1/4

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

W.P.(MD)No.17632 of 2014

contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's post is

subordinate to the post of Manager and the petitioner is incompetent

to receive applications and provide information under Right to

Information Act. As the post was kept vacant for a period from

2010-2013, the other officials who were not designated as Public

Information Officers had been advised by their superiors to provide

necessary information under the Right to Information Act.

3. One P.M.M.Mohideen of Changanacherry of Kerala State had

sought information under the Right to Information Act, regarding the

property tax. The applications were addressed to the Public

Information Officer, Kayalpattinam Municipality as well as the

Public Information Officer cum Municipal Commissioner, Kayalpattinam

Municipal Corporation. The information sought was furnished by the

Municipal Corporation on 15.03.2011. Not satisfied by the

information provided by the Municipality, the above said

P.M.M.Mohideen, preferred the appeal in Case No.47150 of 2012 before

the first respondent. After enquiry, the first respondent directed

the Public Information Officer to provide all the documents sought

under the application. Accordingly, the copies of the relevant

documents were furnished to P.M.M.Mohideen through his brother.

Since the documents were not sent to him directly, the first

respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the second

respondent, directed the petitioner to reply as to why maximum

punishment should not be imposed. As per the instructions of the

second respondent, the petitioner appeared before the first

respondent and made oral submissions regarding the issue raised in

the show cause notice on 22.01.2013. But the first respondent vide

his order, dated 06.08.2014, rejected the petitioner's explanation

and imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- and d