Vishwanath Swami v. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission

Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, for R2 & R3Addl. Government Pleader assisted by Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,Government AdvocateO R D E RThe petitioner, as a party-in-person has filed this writpetition for a direction to the first respondent to forthwith ensurecompliance of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005by the second and third respondents by ensuring that all theinformation sought by him including the documents to be supplied bythe second and third respondents are provided to him and furtherdirect the first respondent to proceed further with the show causenotice issued for imposition of penalty, compensate him and initiatesuch other steps as are provided under the provisions of the Rightto Information Act, 2005, including initiation of departmentalproceedings against the person(s) responsible for denying theinformation sought by him.2.The case of the petitioner is, as follows:(i)Since 2001, the petitioner has been trying toexpose one self proclaimed "Kalki Bhagawan" and his multicrore business activities behind the scene, through mediaand subject his unlawful activities to the legal scrutiny.In March 2005, when the said "Kalki Bhagawan" conspired tokidnap and kill the petitioner, the police arrested onefront-man, namely, Murugappan, along with his vehicle.The said front-man gave a written confessional statementnaming "Kalki Bhagawan" and others who were involved inthe conspiracy and he was in jail custody for a month,until conditional bail was granted by this Court. Thecase was then transferred from Mylapore E-1 Police Station(FIR No.320/2005) to Central Crime Branch (C.C.B.),Chennai, which is controlled by the Commissioner ofPolice, Greater Chennai. One Inspector of Police,S.V.Mahabharathi (Investigating Officer) re-registered thecase in C.C.B. Crime No.284/2005 and investigated thematter. Later, the Investigating Officer and 3 otherSenior Police Officers took huge bribe from "KalkiBhagawan", completely distorted the case of the petitionerby manipulating the documents/records and illegallyexonerated 5 high profile accused persons and filed chargesheet against the lone front-man before the Trial Court inC.C.No.6073 of 2005. When the petitioner was called as aProsecution Witness No.1 before the learned Judge, XIMetropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, he submitted a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sworn affidavit stating the corrupt practices of CentralCrime Branch, Chennai and subversion of law and on27.04.2006, he filed a petition before this Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.O.P.No.11551 of 2006 forordering re-investigation of the entire case and also forpunishing the corrupt police officers.(ii)In order to prove his allegations of corruptionand subversion of law against the said "Kalki Bhagwan" ,the petitioner required 3 documents from the Central CrimeBranch (C.C.B.) and for this purpose, he had struggled toget the required information and documents under theR.T.I. Act 2005, but with malafide intention, the C.C.B.has denied his requests, with one pretext or the other.On 14.11.2006, the State Chief Information Commissionerhas passed an order only partially accepting thepetitioner's case, without properly applying his mind.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner,having no other alternative except to approach this Courthas filed the present writ petition for the aforesaidrelief.3.The first respondent, in his counter has specificallydenied the averment made by the petitioner that the Commission haspassed orders on 09.11.2006 imposing penalty. It is stated thatsince the Public Information Officer sought adjournment on09.11.2006 to have interaction with her superior due the sensitivenature of the case, the Commission merely adjourned the matter to14.11.2006 and on 14.11.2006, the Commissioner of Police appearedbefore the Commission and sought exemption for production of certainrecords under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,and after hearing the matter, the Commission passed a detailed orderon 14.11.2006. 4.In the counter filed on behalf of the second and thirdrespondents, it is stated as follows:(i)No prejudice is caused to the petitioner sinceall the documents have been furnished to him, as per thedirections of the Hon'ble State Information Commission.(ii)The petitioner, who had been closely associatedwith a person popularly known as 'Kalki Bhagawan' partedcompany with him following a rift, after the petitionerquestioned the activities of the said Kalki Bhagawan andhis son. The petitioner stayed in Chennai and startedcollecting materials about Kalki Bhagawan for the reasonsbest known to him. Thereafter, the petitioner becameacquainted with one Murugappan, who posed as a journalist https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and offered to take the petitioner to 'Akkarai Bungalow',which was said to be one of the properties of KalkiBhagawan. But, the petitioner gave a complaint againstMurugappan and others which was registered in Cr.No.320 of2005 of E1 Mylapore Police Station, u/s 419, 380 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 120(b) IPC and the same was transferred toCentral Crime Branch, Chennai and re-registered on16.04.2005 as Central Crime Branch, Chennai Cr.No.284/2005and investigation taken up again.(iii)On completion of the investigation, it wasfound that there was no evidence at all to proceed againstthe said Kalki Bhagawan, his son and others. However,based on the available evidence, the Inspector of Policefiled a charge sheet against the said Murugappan alone u/s419, 380 and 506(ii) I.P.C.(iv)As per G.O.Ms.No.1043, Public (Estt.1 and Leg.)dated 14.10.2005, the City Central Crime Branch wasexempted from furnishing information. Subsequently, thethree documents were given on the directions of the TamilNadu State Information Commission by second respondent tothe petitioner forthwith.(v)The Right to Information Act 2005 (Central Act22 of 2005) is not applicable to certain departments andorganisations as mentioned in Sections 8 and 24 of thesaid Act.(vi)the proviso to Section 24(4) of Right toInformation Act has been misused by the petitioner.(vii)When the petitioner insisted for imposingof levy against public authority for delay in furnishinginformation as per the Right to Information Act, theCommission explained to the petitioner that the penalprovision of the Act could be invoked only when there ismalafide intention.(viii)As per the provisions of Section 8(g) and(h) and G.O.Ms.No.1043, Public (Estt.I and Leg.) dated14.10.2005, the petitioner cannot seek information as ofright and the prayer sought by the petitioner is whollyunsustainable in law. 5.In the additional counter affidavit filed by the thirdrespondent, it is stated that on completion of investigation, theprosecution had referred the case as "Mistake of Fact" on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30.04.2007. The negative final report was also filed in the same CCNo.6073 of 2005 before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai on 08.06.2007 after serving RC Notice to thispetitioner on 07.06.2007 along with the documents collected duringinvestigation conducted by CB CID, which includes the documentsrequired to be furnished by the third respondent as mentioned in theearlier counter affidavit. The documents were checked and receivedby the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015on 18.06.2007. It is further stated that since all the originalsand copies of the records collected at the time of investigationincluding certain documents asked for by this petitioner havealready been filed before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai, the petitioner can very well approach the saidCourt and obtain the copy of the documents by filing appropriateapplication.6.The petitioner has also filed rejoinders to the counteraffidavits of the respondents and additional counter affidavit ofthe third respondent, stating that his allegations are based on thefacts and documentary evidences and that not all the documents weregiven to him as claimed. He has stated that he never demanded thearrest of 'Kalki Bhagawan' and his son and he was never a part ofhis 'Ashram'. 7.Heard Mr.Viswanath Swami, party-in-person, Mr.G.Rajagopal,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent andMr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned Addl. Government Pleader for the secondand third respondents.8.Mr.Viswanath Swami, party-in-person, has put forth thefollowing contentions:(a)the order of the first and second respondentsare contradictory and as a result of the arbitrarydirection on the part of the State InformationCommission, the petitioner has been given the document,censoring vital information. (b)while the Commissioner of Police has written tothe petitioner on 14.09.2006 that theinformation/documents called for could not be furnishedas they are not available in Chennai City Police Office,after 2 months, i.e. on 14.11.2006, she has furnishedcertain documents, which, as per the Right to InformationAct, is an act of misleading the petitioner.(c)while under Section 5(1) of the Right toInformation Act, every public shall, within 100 days ofenactment of the RTI Act, designate Public InformationOfficer, the C.B.C.I.D. has not even appointed a 'PublicInformation Officer' till date. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d)the first respondent has failed to exercise therights available to it under Section 19(8) of the RTIAct, such as to compensate the complainant for the lossor other detriment suffered or imposition of penalty,thereby granting premium to the second and thirdrespondents to defy the provisions of the RTI Act. 9.The petitioner, in support of his contentions, has reliedon certain Sections of the Right to Information Act, 2005, whichread as follows:"8. Exemption from disclosure of information:(h)Information which would impede the process ofinvestigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;10.Severability: (1)Where a request for accessto information is rejected on the ground that it is inrelation to information which is exempt from disclosure,then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,access may be provided to that part of the record whichdoes not contain any information which is exempt fromdisclosure under this Act and which can reasonably besevered from any part that contains exempt information.(2)Where access is granted to a part of the recordunder sub-section (1), the Central Public InformationOffice or State Public Information Officer, as the casemay be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing -(a)that only part of the record requested,after severance of the record containinginformation which is exempt from disclosure, isbeing provided;(b)the reasons for the decision, includingany findings on any material question of fact,referring to the material on which those findingswere based'24.Act not to apply to certain organisations :(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to theintelligence and security organisations specified in theSecond Schedule, being organisations established by theCentral Government or any information furnished by suchorganisations to that Government: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that the information pertaining to theallegations of corruption and human rights violationsshall not be excluded under this sub-section: (4)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply tosuch intelligence and security organisations beingorganisations established by the State Government, as thatGovernment may, from time to time, by notification in theOfficial Gazette, specify:Provided that the information pertaining to theallegations of corruption and human rights violationsshall not be excluded under this sub-section:Provided further that in the case of informationsought for is in respect of allegations of violation ofhuman rights, the Information shall only be provided afterthe approval of the State Information Commission andnotwithstanding anything contained in section 7, suchinformation shall be provided within forty-five days fromthe date of receipt of request.10.Further, the petitioner has also brought to the notice ofthis Court the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Naduin Government Gazette Part-II, Section 2, Issue No.226, the orderspassed in G.O.Ms.No.1043, Public (Estt.I & Leg.), dated the 14thOctober 2005, which reads as follows:No.II(2)/PUEL/778/(c)/2005 : In exercise of the powersconferred by sub-section (4) of section 24 of the Right toInformation Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005), theGovernor of Tamil Nadu hereby specifies the followingIntelligence and Security Organizations established by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu for which the said Act shall notapply:-1.Crime Branch CID2.Special Investigation Team3.Video Piracy Cell4.Narcotics Intelligence Bureau5.Anti-Dacoity Cell6.Economic Offence Wing7.Economic Office Wing – II8.Idol Wing9.CCIW CID10.Civil Supplies CID11.Cyber Crime Cell12.District Crime Branches and City Crime Branches https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.Special Task Force14.Tamil Nadu Commando Force15.Tamil Nadu Commando School16.Coastal Security Group17.Finger Prints Bureau18.Police Radio Branch11.Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent has putforth the following contentions:(a)the frivolous allegations of the petitioneragainst the first respondent Commission are highlyreprehensible.(b)it is incorrect that the Commission passedorders on 09.11.2006 imposing penalty on the petitioner,since the Commissioner of Police appeared before theCommission and sought exemption for production of certainrecords under Sections 8(1) (h) of the Right toInformation Act, 2005 and after hearing the matter, theCommission passed a detailed order only on 14.11.2006, acopy of which has also been given to the petitioner.12.Learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the secondand third respondents has contended that :(a)this writ petition has been preferred by thepetitioner only because Kalki Bhagawan and his son werenot arrested.(b)the averments made by the petitioner against thepolice officers are false.(c)the first respondent did not impose any fine,but directed the then Public Information Officer tofurnish the documents to the petitioner and as directed,the documents were furnished to the petitioner.(d)the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act22 of 2005) is not applicable to certain Departments andorganisations as mentioned in Section 8 and 24 of the saidAct. (e)the proviso to Section 24(4) of the Right toInformation Act has been misused by the petitioner(f)the first respondent would be the properauthority to respondents.(g)partial documents can be furnished as per theprovisions contained in Section 10 of the Right toInformation Act. (h)From the Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice ,the petitioner can apply before the Criminal Court to ask forthe copies on payment of proper court fee and instead, he isasking the same before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i)G.O. Ms.No.1043 is clear on the exemption as theDepartment has been exempted from the applicability of thesame.13.I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents.14.On a careful analysis of the case, it is seen that therelief sought by the petitioner is three-fold, viz.,(i) to direct the first respondent to ensurecompliance of the provisions of the Right to InformationAct, 2005 by the second and third respondents byensuring that all the information sought by thepetitioner including the documents to be supplied by thesecond and third respondents are provided to thepetitioner,(ii)to direct the first respondent to proceedfurther with the show cause notice issued for impositionof penalty and compensate the petitioner and(iii)to initiate such other steps as areprovided under the provisions of the Right toInformation Act, 2005 including initiation ofdepartmental proceedings against the person(s)responsible for denying the information sought for bythe petitioner.15.In this case, it is seen that the petitioner who had beenclosely associated with Kalki Bhagavan, parted company with himfollowing a rift after the petitioner questioned the activities ofthe latter and his son. Due to this rift, the petitioner had comeout from the Ashram and stayed in Chennai for gathering informationabout Kalki Bhagavan to take certain action against him. It is alsoseen that the petitioner had given a complaint against oneMurugappan and others who had taken him to Akkarai bungalowbelonging to Kalki Bhagavan and a complaint had been registered inCrime No.320 of 2005 of E.1 Mylapore Police Station under Section419, 380 and 506 (ii) IPC read with 120 (b) IPC. It appears thatthe petitioner had been insisting that the police should take actionagainst Kalki Bhagavan and his son and this case filed before E.1Police Station had been transferred to Central Crime Branch, Chennaiand re-registered on 16.04.2005 as Central Crime Branch Cr. No.284of 2005 and investigation had been taken up therein. Theinvestigation had been processed and on completion of theinvestigation, it was found that there was no evidence to proceedagainst Kalki Bhagavan, his son and others. However, based on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence available, the Inspector of Police filed a charge sheetagainst Murugappan alone who had taken the petitioner to Akkaraibungalow under Section 419, 380 and 506(ii) IPC and the same wastaken on file by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet inCC No.6073/2005 on 05.10.2005.16.To decide whether the relief sought by the petitioner forproviding the information and the documents and for initiatingaction to proceed further with the show cause notice and also fordepartmental action can be granted, the records and the materialsplaced before this Court have been perused and taken intoconsideration and it appears that some documents filed in the typed-set of papers would reveal certain particulars which are shown inthe following tabular column.Sl.No.Information soughtby the petitionerInformation providedby the P.I.O.Reasons for notproviding information1Copy of the letterNo.180 of DC,Mylapore addressedto the JCOP, Southdated 30.03.2005Furnished on14.11.2006 except oneparagraph of theletterAs per the directionsof the State ChiefInformationCommissioner, RTIAct, Chennai dated14.11.2006 withheldpara directed to becommunicated afterinvestigation iscompleted by CBCID2The complaintletter dated17.05.2006 beforethe Commissionerof Police, ChennaiCity, whatnecessary actionwas taken on thatto redress thepetitioner'sgrievanceCOP has replied inher letter dated14.11.2006 to thepetitioner-- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.Information soughtby the petitionerInformation providedby the P.I.O.Reasons for notproviding information3161 statementgiven by thepetitioner inEnglish to theI.O. - 3 pageoriginal statementcopyNot furnishedThe entire case diaryfile has been handedover to CBCID,Chennai on 18.07.2006itself. In theabsence of therelevant filed whichwas handed over toCBCID, Chennai, theinformation/documentscalled for are notavailable in ChennaiCity Police Officeand therefore couldnot be furnished. Thereasons adduced inthis column have beenintimated to thepetitioner on14.09.2006 itself.4Departmentalaction initiatedagainst I.O. Andother policeofficersInformation furnished– Departmental actioninitiated against theI.O. and otherpolice officers canbe decided only afterthe completion of theinvestigation by theCBCID – petitionerinformed of the sameon 14.09.2006 itself--5Opinion of theDeputy Director ofProsecutionFurnished on14.11.2006--6Information soughtby the petitionerpertaining totelephone recordsobtained by theI.O.Third respondent(CBCID) would be theproper authority torespond as per thedirections of theInformationCommission --17.In this context, it would be useful to analyse thefollowing information gathered from the records available beforethis Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.Information sought by thepetitionerAction in this regard1Letter addressed to theCOP, Chennai City from thepetitioner dated 21.03.2006(Application form enclosed)Information sought – letterof DC, Mylapore addressedto the COP, Chennai Citydated 30.03.2005On behalf of P.I.O, Inspector ofPolice, Central Crime Brnach,Team VIII informed the applicantabout the existence of G.O.Ms.No.1043, Public (Estt. I &Leg.) dated 14.10.2005. Section24(4) of RTI Act provisionsquoted.2Letter addressed to theP.I.O. by the petitionerdated 15.07.2006 – seeking6 informationNot furnished – Section 24(4) ofRTI Act and G.O. Mentioned aboverelied upon.3First Appeal preferred bythe petitioner to theappellant authority/ SeniorPublic Information Officerdated 24.08.2006P.I.O. Acknowledged – Intimatingthe petitioner that reply will besent shortly – letter dated25.08.20064Reminder sent to the COP bythe petitioner dated14.09.2006Replied to the petitioner in herletter Rc.No.39/70279/PG.I(1)/RTI/06 dated 14.09.2006 – replygiven by the COP for thepetitions given by the petitionerdated 14.08.2006 and 14.09.20065Appeal preferred by thepetitioner u/s 19 of RTIAct before the State ChiefInformation Commissioner on05.10.2006Appeared and argued since therewas no mala fide intention on thepart of the respondents, no finewas imposed. But Commissiondirected to furnish informationto the petitioner as prayed for.In deference to the orders of theCommission, information furnishedforthwith.6Information sought by thepetitioner from the T.N.State InformationCommission dated 14.12.2006with regard to show causenotice alleged to have beenissued by the Commissionand reply of the P.I.O.Alleged to ahve been filedbefore the StateInformation Commission.Alleged Show Cause Notice notissued. Filing of reply did notarise. No fine was imposed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.From a perusal of the above information, it is seen thatcertain information has been furnished and certain information notfurnished in view of the relevant provisions contemplated underSections 8(1)(h), 10 and 24(4) of the Act as well as G.O.Ms.No.1043, Public (Estt. I & Leg.) dated 14.10.2005. 19.It is to be noted that the first respondent, in its orderdated 14.11.2006, had opined as under:"However, during the period this transfer tookplace and there was a time gap when the documents werestill in the possession of COP. Also since there is anallegation of corruption, immunity granted to CCB andthe CB-CID over the documents does not operate. Underthe circumstances, the petitioner came on 2nd appeal tothe Commission. The Commission rules that suchdocuments which are not part of the currentinvestigation by CB-CID has to be handed over to thepetitioner and those which are part of the investigationshould be given to him after the investigation is overand case is filed."20.In this context, it would also be useful to refer to thedirections given by the first Respondent in its order, dated14.11.2006. (i)The original 161 statement made by thecomplainant in English. This is the document which isgiven by the petitioner himself and cannot be held asconfidential has to be handed over to him;(ii)The Commissioner of Police's remarks on hiscomplaint letter dated 17.05.2006 presented to COP, asto whom the letter was referred and what action has beentaken for redressal of his complaint.This information should also be furnished to thepetitioner as no privilege for this arises also;(iii)The telephone record obtained by theInvestigation Officer for telephone Nos.98840 26688,98840 12348 and 5587 1728. It was averred by the officerfrom the CB-CID that these records are pertaining to athird party. As such, under RTI Act notice have to beissued to the third party concerned and 10 days timeshould be given for them to respond and their responseevaluated and a decision should be taken by the PublicInformation Officer. If no valid objection is raised orreply is not received within 10 days or if anyoverwhelming public purpose is seen, the information https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ must be given. Public Information Officer, CB-CID is toensure this.(iv)The report of the Deputy Director ofProsecution dated 10.06.2006 to the CCB. This documentdoes not appear to be a privileged document under theAct and may be given.(v)A copy of the Mylapore Deputy Commissioner'sreport dated 30.03.2005 stating that he is transferringthe case to CCB from Mylapore E1 police station. ThePublic Authority represented that this report containsvital information pertaining to another ongoinginvestigation and which should not be revealed now andas it will jeopardize the investigation at the movement.The commission would suggest that the other 3 paragraphsof the report may be given immediately to the petitionerand withheld paragraph, may be given communicated to himafter the investigation is completed, which according tothe CB-CID would be over by the end of January 2007.(vi)The details of departmental action initiatedagainst some police officials mentioned in the complaintdated 17.05.2005."21.The main grievance put forth by the petitioner is that thedocuments furnished to him are not exempted ones and certaindocuments which have been furnished are not relevant. It is to bedecided whether this Court, in the light of the above provisions,can examine whether the documents furnished are relevant or not.As the matter has been completely seized of by the first respondentunder the relevant provisions of the Act, the only issue involved inthis petition is whether certain documents which were not furnishedcan be exempted from the purview of the Act or not and if it is notexempted, whether the directions sought in this petition can beconsidered or not.22.From an analysis of the provisions and the exemptionsunder Section 24(4) of the Act and G.O. Ms.No.1043, the issue forconsideration comes under the purview of the allegation ofcorruption. From the petitioner's case, as culled out from thematerials available on record, it is not known for what reasons hehas parted company with Kalki Bhagavan to expose the latter's multi-crore business activities behind the scene through media and subjecthis unlawful activities to legal scrutiny and as to why heapprehends certain conspiracy against him. Thedocuments/information which the petitioner is not entitled to haveunder the Act have to be scrutinised by the first respondent.Accordingly, a direction has been issued and the same has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scrupulously followed and certain documents were furnished and someof them were not given. Also, the action initiated and the reliefin respect of taking action against the responsible officers are allmatters which can be considered at the stage on the finality of theculmination of the criminal proceedings and the ultimate conclusionwhether the responsible officers are found guilty or not are allmatters to be decided at a later point of time. So far as therelief in question whether the mandamus directing the respondents 2and 3 to provide the documents sought by the petitioner can be givenand whether the documents which were denied are exempted under therelevant provisions, can be considered only in the light of theprovisions of the Act and this can be exempted on the allegation ofcorruption and human rights violation.23.The petitioner has specifically pleaded that theInvestigating Officer and the three other senior Police officerstook huge bribe from Kalki Bhagavan and illegally exonerated fivehigh profile accused persons and filed charge sheet against the lonefront man before the Trial Court (C.C. No.6073/2005) and in order todo this, the Investigating Officer has completely distorted his caseand manipulated the documents/records and he has consistentlycontended that this is a case coming under the purview of corruptionand therefore, exemption provided under the Act under Section 24(4)which specifically provide that information pertaining to allegationof corruption and human rights violation shall not be excluded underthis sub-section 4. However, in G.O.Ms.No.1043 which has alreadybeen extracted, under item 1, Crime Branch, CB-CID which is thesubject matter of this writ petition, has been listed. Because ofthis notification under the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 14.10.2005, inexercise of the powers conferred upon the Government to notify andthe applicability of the Act, in the instant case, CB-CID isexempted from the applicability of the Act and accordingly, therespondents have acted on it in the light of the provisionscontemplated under Sections 8(1)(h) and 24(4) of the Act andG.O.Ms.No.1043. As the notification has not made anything clearabout the exemption granted under the proviso, the Government ofTamil Nadu has to clarify the position of exemption available underthe provisions of the Act in the first proviso to Section 24(4) ofthe Act. The point in case of what allegations of corruption, theapplicability of the Act precludes certain documents to be revealed,can be considered only when the above referred to Government Orderis clarified. Therefore, the Public Department of the Government ofTamil Nadu has to clarify G.O.Ms.No.1043, though it has not beenimpleaded as a party to this writ petition and hence, either thepetitioner or the respondents is directed to approach the Secretary,Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu with regard to theclarification in respect of first proviso to Section 24(4) of theAct and the Government of Tamil Nadu has to come out with aclarification to clear that in cases of allegation of corruption, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whether the applicability of the Act, can be considered.Thereafter, it is left open to the parties to the proceedings toclarify the position and the petitioner may approach the firstrespondent for the remaining relief in respect of his claim forfurnishing certain information and documents under the provisions ofthe Act. Only then, the relief sought in this writ petition may beconsidered as otherwise, the information furnished to the petitioneras per G.O. Ms.No.1043, appears to be in accordance with theprovisions of the Act.With the above directions and observation, the writ petition isdisposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No.1 of 2007 isclosed.abeSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Information Commission,Kamadhenu Super Market (1st Floor),Old No.273/New No.378, Anna Salai,Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai,Egmore, Chennai 600 008.3.The Superintendent of Police,Crime Branch – C.I.D. (North Zone),Omandhurar Government Estate,Chennai 600 002.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.65657+ 1 cc to Mr. G. R. Associates, SR No.64110+ 2 ccs to Mr. Vishwanth Swami, SR no. 64204SJ(CO)SR/30.10.2007 order inW.P.No.6111 of 2007