Kalaiarasan v. The Public Information Officer/Manager

ORDER The present writ petition is nothing but a misuse of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶2The petitioner herein would submit that he is the Joint Secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishat. It is his contention that with an intent of wiping out corruption in the Sattur Municipality, with reference to the funds utilised by them, as also encroachments on water bodies, etc., he has raised 92 RTI queries. The respondent-Municipality painstakingly answered the queries. However, the petitioner would make a vague statement that certain information was not furnished to him and therefore, he made a second appeal to the State Information Commissioner by way of second appeal and the said petition was allowed on 22.11.2019, despite which the information has not been forthcoming. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the first respondent to implement the order passed by the State Information Commissioner.

¶3A few of the questions raised by the petitioner would clearly demonstrate that the same is nothing but a roving enquiry. Below are just samples showing the nature of the queries: ",dk;-15 rhj;J}h; efuhl;rpapy; Gfhh; kD / Nfhhpf;if kD kPJ vLj;j eltbf;if gw;wp Gfhh; Nfhhpf;if / kD nra;j nghJkf;fSf;F njhpag;gLj;j fle;j 01.03.2017 Kjy; jw;NghJ tiu nra;j nrytpdk; gw;wp tpguk; jUf. ,dk;-17 rhj;J}h; efuhl;rpapy; gzpapy; cs;sth;fs; kPJ fhty;epiyaj;jpy; Gfhh; kD VJTk;

nfhLf;fhky;

tprhuizapy;

jPh;g;G ngw;Ws;shuh vd;w tpguk; jUf. ,dk;-19 rhj;J}h; efuhl;rpapy; rQ;r xopg;G Jiwapdh; vz;fd; cld; $ba jfty; gyif> Gfhh; ngl;b itj;Js;s ,lKk; mjd; thapyhf ngwg;gl;l Gfhh; vj;jid vd;w tpguKk; mjd; kPJ vLf;fg;gl;l eltbf;if gw;wpa jfty; jUf. ,dk;-58 rhj;J}h; efuhl;rpapy; ghjhs rhf;fil ,izg;Gf;F ngwg;gLk; Kd;njhif tpguk;> kw;Wk; mjd; gzpahsh; ngah; tpguk;> VjhtJ ghjhs rhf;fil milg;G vd;why; mjw;F guhkhpf;fg;gLk;

nryT

njhif

vt;tsT nghJkf;fsplk; vt;tsT t#y; nra;ag;gLfpwJ. ,dk;-77 rhj;J}h; efh; mk;kh cztfk; mike;Js;s ,lk; thlifah efuhl;rpf;F nrhe;j ,lkh."

¶4These queries have also been answered by the first respondent and the petitioner appears to be dissatisfied with the answer that he has received. The petitioner has not set out in his petition the information which has been denied to him, particularly when he has raised 92 questions. He has simply stated that "however, certain information was not furnished to him" without specifying the information not provided to him. I, therefore, see no reason to issue a mandamus, without the petitioner specifying the information that has been kept away from him. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.06.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To

1.The Public Information Officer/Manager, Sattur Municipality, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Manager, Sattur Municipality, Virudhunagar District.

P.T.ASHA, J. abr Dated: 15.06.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.06.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Kalaiarasan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Public Information Officer/Manager, Sattur Municipality, Virudhunagar District. 2.S.Perumal, Manager, Sattur Municipality, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to furnish the Information to the petitioner in his RTI Petition dated 05.09.2018, as per the order passed by the State Information Commissioner via order dated 22.11.2019 in the petitioner's Second Appeal, within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For Respondents : Mr.M.Kannan Standing Counsel