P.AruchamyS/o.Late.Ponnusamy GounderNo.4/14 v. The RegistarThe Tamilnadu Information commissionblock No.19 Government Farm villageNandanamchennai-600 0352.The Public Information
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Right to Information Act, 2005 s. 18
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering the limited scope of prayer, this Court, without expressing anything on merits, directs the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 13.01.2026 after conducting due enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with…
Judgment
WP No. 18010 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 18010 of 2026P.AruchamyS/o.Late. Ponnusamy GounderNo.4/14,SinthiluppuAnikadavu, Udumalpet TalukTiruppur District -642 120..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The RegistarThe Tamilnadu Information commissionblock No.19 Government Farm villageNandanamchennai-600 0352.The Public Information officer/Deputy TahsildarUdumalpet TalukTiruppur District -642 120..Respondent(s)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the complaint preferred by the petitioner invoking under section 18 of the Right to Information Act 2005 dated 13.1.2026 within a time frame as fixed by this HOnble courtFor Petitioner(s):A.AnsarFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.Vigneswaran, OrderThis Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to dispose of the complaint preferred by the petitioner invoking under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18010 of 2026__________Page2 of 418 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 13.01.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
The case of the petitioner is that the information provided by the 2nd respondent for the application submitted by the petitioner under RTI Act was not satisfied, irrelevant, contradictory to his questions and also violates the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, he filed a complaint before the 1st respondent in order to get information from the 2nd respondent in accordance with Section 18 of RTI Act, however, the 1st respondent neither conducted any enquiry nor sent any notice for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Hence, the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
Operative part
Considering the limited scope of prayer, this Court, without expressing anything on merits, directs the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 13.01.2026 after conducting due enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18010 of 2026__________Page3 of 4 5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 02-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSkTo1.The RegistarThe Tamilnadu Information commissionblock No.19 Government Farm villageNandanamchennai-600 0352.The Public Information officer/Deputy TahsildarUdumalpet TalukTiruppur District -642 120 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18010 of 2026__________Page4 of 4M.DHANDAPANI J.SkWP No. 18010 of 202602-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Right to Information Act, 2005 — s. 18.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.