Skip to content


D. Samuel Vs. The Information Commissioner and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Chennai Madurai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

W.P(MD) No. 23915 of 2016 & W.M.P(MD) No. 17250 of 2016

Judge

Appellant

D. Samuel

Respondent

The Information Commissioner and Others

Excerpt:


right to information act, 2005 - section 20 (1), section 20 (2) - constitution of india, 1950 - article 226 condone delay - petitioner had filed second appeal along with condone delay before first respondent/information commissioner first respondent had mechanically returned second appeal as not filed within period of limitation petitioner sought to quash impugned order passed by first respondent and to direct first respondent to impose penalty to third respondent under act -hence this writ petition court held first respondent had fairly submitted that though authority has got power to condone delay, same was not exercised and as such matter may be remitted back to first respondent without going into merits of claim - impugned order passed by first respondent is set aside and matter is remitted back to first respondent to consider prayer for condoning delay in filing second appeal and pass orders on merits in accordance with law within prescribed period writ petition was allowed. paras: (5,6) .....and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to impose penalty to the third respondent by invoking sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 of the right to information act, 2005.) 1. mr.k.k.senthil, learned standing counsel takes notice for the first respondent and mr.a.muthukaruppan, learned additional government pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 3. the petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent on 27.09.2016, wherein and whereby, the second appeal preferred before the first respondent was returned, as the same was not filed within the period of limitation. 4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has specifically prayed for condoning the delay in filing the second appeal, in the appeal petition itself filed on 1.9.2016, the authority namely, the first respondent failed to consider such prayer and mechanically returned the appeal. 5. the learned counsel for the first respondent fairly submitted that though the authority has got the power.....

Judgment:


(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Gen.No.28211/B/16 and 28212/B/16, dated 27.09.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to impose penalty to the third respondent by invoking sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.)

1. Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3.

2. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself.

3. The Petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent on 27.09.2016, wherein and whereby, the Second Appeal preferred before the first respondent was returned, as the same was not filed within the period of limitation.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the Petitioner has specifically prayed for condoning the delay in filing the Second Appeal, in the appeal petition itself filed on 1.9.2016, the authority namely, the first respondent failed to consider such prayer and mechanically returned the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent fairly submitted that though the authority has got the power to condone the delay, the same was not exercised and therefore for such purpose, the matter may be remitted back to the first respondent.

6. Considering all these aspects and without expressing any view on the claim made by the Petitioner, in respect of the merits of the information sought for by him, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Gen.No.28211/B/16 and 28212/B/16, dated 27.09.2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for considering the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the Second Appeal and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //