RTI ACT-IMPOSITION OF FINE BY TNIC-VALID AS PER ACT-JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.01.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.NO.22479 of 2009
and
M.P.NO.1 OF 2009



The Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission,
represented by its Secretary,
Omanthoorar Government Estate,
Chennai-600 002. .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
rep. By its Registrar,
Kamadhenu Super Market,
First Floor,
Old No.273, New No.378, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018.

2.K.Alagriswami .. Respondents

This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 11.06.2009 made in Case No.38184/Enquiry/2008 in the matter of K.Alagriswami Vs. Public Information Officer, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as void, unlawful, unjust and unconstitutional.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Surendranath

For Respondents : Mr.G.Rajagopal, SC for
M/s.G.R.Associates for R1
Mr.K.Premkumar for R2
- - - -
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC) represented by its Secretary. They have come forward to challenge the show cause notice, dated 27.5.2009 as to why Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act should not be invoked against the petitioner TNPSC. The Information Commission also directed the petitioner to supply information within three days free of cost as it was prima facie satisfied that the information was denied without any reasonable cause. Notice of motion was ordered on 06.11.2009 and an interim stay was also granted.
3.It is seen from the records that the second respondent sought for certain information regarding recruitment to the Combined Engineering Services conducted by the TNPSC for the Public Works Department. The petitioner gave a reply on 20.6.2008 to the second respondent. The second respondent informed the appellate authority of the TNPSC that the information furnished by them was incomplete. The appellate authority took the stand that the information sought for relating to marks obtained by the candidates cannot be furnished as it comes under an exempted category under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act. It was thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the Information Commission (R1).
4.The first respondent issued summons to the petitioner TNPSC. Thereafter, the Information Commission came to the conclusion that exemption is not available with reference to furnishing of marks as it was not covered by Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Since information was not furnished as sought for by the applicant, it was held that it was a fit case where an action should be taken against TNPSC.
5.The petitioner raised a contention that supply of documents sought for by the second respondent was sub-judice before this court in two writ petitions and that it was covered by statutory exemption provided under the Act.
6.Though the petitioner relied upon Article 320 of the Constitution of India, it has got no relevance to the facts of the case. On the contrary, the information sought for by the second respondent is not protected by any exemption granted under Section 8. The appellate authority constituted by the petitioner did not apply its mind in deciding the issue. Pendency of two writ petitions has no relevance to the facts of this case and the question of sub-judice need not stop the TNPSC from furnishing the information.
7.So long as the information sought for is available with the petitioner TNPSC and if was not exempted under Section 8, they are duty bound to provide such information. Further, the present challenge is only to a show cause notice. It is for the petitioner Commission to give an appropriate explanation with reference to the invocation of power under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned show cause notice. In so far as furnishing of information is concerned, as found in the impugned order, the petitioner TNPSC is bound to provide information, since the information sought for is not covered by the exemptions provided under the Act.
8.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.
9.The petitioner is given three weeks to submit their explanation with reference to the show cause notice based on Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act. Further, with reference to the information, they are duty bound to provide to the second respondent such information without fail. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.










vvk

To

The Registrar,
The Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
Kamadhenu Super Market,
First Floor,
Old No.273, New No.378, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018