Gandhi @ Sangili vs The State Information Officer, State Information Commission and Others

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. V. Bharathidasan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. R. Manoharan, the

learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2, as well as Mr. S. Kanagarajan, the learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the Respondents 3 to 8.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the second Respondent had passed the impugned order,

dated 23.02.2010, without issuing any notice to the Petitioner. Therefore, he had prayed that the impugned order of the second Respondent, dated

23.02.2010, is to be set aside and the matter relating to the issuance of patta, in respect of the property in question, should be decided by the

second Respondent, afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as to the Respondents 3 to 8.

The learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents, have no

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondents, the impugned order of the second Respondent, dated 23.02.2010, is set aside and the second

Respondent is directed to hear and dispose of the matter, afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as to the

Respondents 3 to 8 and the other persons concerned, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.