The Principal vs The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, The Directorate of Collegiate Education, The Joint Director of Collegiate Education and M. Laurance

T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first Respondent/the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai, in case No. 4547/Enquiry/2007, dated 03.08.2007 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 28735/F2/2000, dated 06.09.2007.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the Principal of St. Jude''s College, Thoothoor at Kanyakumari District. The college is affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. The Petitioner took charge as the Principal of the said college on 18.06.2002. The All India Association for Christian Higher Education has awarded the Petitioner with the best Principal Award for the year 2006-2007. While so, the fourth Respondent Mr. M. Laurance sent an application addressed to the Petitioner, dated 24.02.2006, seeking information with regard to the letter of the Director of Collegiate Education in Na. Ka. No. 28735/F2/2000, dated 04.03.2004. Since the above said information sought for by the fourth Respondent relates to the office of the Director of Collegiate Education/the second Respondent herein, the Petitioner was not having the information in his office. Therefore, he returned the application of the fourth Respondent along with demand draft by way of certificate of posting on 11.03.2006 expressing his inability to provide the above said information.

The fourth Respondent, after receiving the above said letter, once again, addressed another letter to the Petitioner on 25.03.2006 stating that the fourth Respondent had not received any reply for his application dated 24.02.2006 and once again reminding the Petitioner for his early reply, he sought the same information. In the meantime, the Petitioner came to know that the fourth Respondent is none other than the husband of Mrs. Reethamal, who is working as a Special Grade Typist in the Petitioner''s college. Therefore, the Petitioner sent another letter dated 17.04.2006 to the fourth Respondent informing that the Petitioner had already returned his application on 11.03.2006 and along with his letter, the Petitioner also handed over a copy of the earlier letter dated 11.03.2006 to the fourth Respondent''s wife Mrs. Reethamal.

The fourth Respondent once again sent a letter dated 04.01.2007 requesting for a copy of the said proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education. The Petitioner, after receipt of the above said letter, third time, written another letter, dated 18.01.2007 stating that the office of the Principal had not received any such information regarding the said Director''s proceedings. After receipt of the above said reply letter, the fourth Respondent issued a lawyer''s notice dated 13.02.2007 alleging that the Petitioner had fraudulently prepared false postal receipts in collusion with postal personnel and violated the Right to Information Act, 2005, and on that basis, the fourth Respondent demanded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-within fifteen days. Immediately on receipt of the lawyer''s notice, the Petitioner sent a reply through a lawyer on 01.03.2007 denying his allegations and the claim for compensation as untenable.

After about five months, the Petitioner received the impugned proceedings from the first Respondent, Tamil Nadu State Information Commission dated 03.08.2007, stating that the Petitioner failed to provide the copy of the Director''s proceedings to the fourth Respondent, in spite of his several requests and at last, he got the same from the third Respondent/Joint Director of Collegiate Education, on 05.02.2007. It is the said order, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is not legally maintainable and also in violation of the principles of natural justice, for the reason that the fourth Respondent approached the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and the Tamil Nadu Information Commission should have dismissed the application of the fourth Respondent on the ground that by the time the fourth Respondent approached the first Respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission has given the information sought for by the fourth Respondent. Therefore, the application made by the fourth Respondent should have been rejected, as Section 19(1) of the Right To Information Act, 2005, does not apply to the case of the Petitioner for having raised the alleged cause of action.

Secondly, the fourth Respondent is not entitled to ask for the above said information for the simple reason that the fourth Respondent''s wife Mrs. Reethamal has been working as a Special Grade Typist in the Petitioner''s college. Therefore, if at all the fourth Respondent was in need of necessary information, the fourth Respondent should not have asked for the above said information through Mrs. Reethamal. Thirdly, the first Respondent after receiving the application u/s 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, even without giving any notice whatsoever, allowed the above said application filed by the fourth Respondent. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, it is a violation of principles of natural justice. Based on the above, the learned Counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

On the other hand, the fourth Respondent M. Laurance, sought to defend the impugned order on the ground that the Petitioner is entitled to go before the State Information Commission, though the information, which he originally sought for was given on 05.02.2007, was furnished to him belatedly, and therefore, he justified the impugned order on the ground that the information sought for by the Petitioner was not given to him within the time stipulated by the Act. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

I have considered the above rival submissions.

Prima facie, it is the case, where the fourth Respondent, who is the husband of one Mrs. Reethamal, who was working as a Special Grade Typist in the Petitioner''s college, sought for information issued by the Director of Collegiate Education, which relates to the promotion of the fourth Respondent''s wife. The Petitioner, who is the Principal of St. Jude''s College in Kanyakumari District, replied promptly informing the real position to the fourth Respondent stating that he has not got the information so sought for by the fourth Respondent. Having not received the information issued by the Director of Collegiate Education, after receipt of the above said application filed by the fourth Respondent, once again, the fourth Respondent addressed another letter to the Petitioner on 25.03.2006, stating that he has not received any reply for his application dated 24.02.2006. Even on receipt of the above said letter, the Petitioner, after finding out that the fourth Respondent is the husband of Mrs. Reethamal, who is working as Special Grade Typist in the same college, sent a letter on 17.04.2006 informing that he had already returned his application on 11.03.2006 along with his letter and he has also furnished a copy of the earlier letter dated 11.03.2006 by handing over the same to the fourth Respondent''s wife Mrs. Reethamal. Finally, the fourth Respondent received the information from the third Respondent on 05.02.2007 and after receiving the above information, the fourth Respondent should not have rushed to the first Respondent, viz., the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission on 13.02.2007. Section 19(1) of the Act does not give any cause of action for the fourth Respondent on the date when he filed an application on 12.03.2005 to seek any more information, which was already furnished by the third Respondent. However, the first Respondent also, on receipt of the above said application filed by the fourth Respondent, u/s 19(1) of the Act even without affording formal notice, has wrongly allowed the application directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,300/-as compensation (travelling charges).

Further, the fourth Respondent, after getting information on 05.02.2007, filed an application on 12.03.2007 even without disclosing the fact that he has already received the information sought for by him before the Petitioner.

In view of all the above, I am of the considered view that since the impugned order has been passed without prior notice, it is totally contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the order dated 03.08.2007 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.