Madras High Court
Vijayakumar vs / on 28 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3522 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.3522 of 2025
Vijayakumar .... Petitioner
/Vs/
1. The State Information Commissioner
Tamil Nadu, Chennai
2. The District Collector
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3. The PA to District Collector (General),
Information Officer,
Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
4. The Deputy Tahsildar
Virudhunagar Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. .... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 permit the
petitioner's representative to inspect and furnish the documents related to
the proceedings in File No. 57/76 dated 25.07.1967 within the time
stipulated by this Court and also direct the 3rd respondent to pay
appropriate Compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of The Right to
Information Act 2005 for non-furnishing of information / documents.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.3522 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
For R1 : Mr. Raguvaran Gopalan
Standing Counsel
For R2 to R4 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the
respondents to permit the petitioner's representative to inspect and
furnish the documents related to the proceedings in File No.57/76 dated
25.07.1967 within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. I have heard Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the first respondent and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he came to know about
the assignment of a land one of his relative Kulanthai Tharasu, S/o.Maria
Micheal under the proceedings in File Number 57/76 dated 25.07.1967.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
4. According to the petitioner, the information sought from the
third respondent was with regard to the said assignment to substantiate
the possession and enjoyment of the said lands by one S.Puspham, who
was the original assignee under the above said proceedings. The
petitioner has filed a first appeal before the District Collector, the second
respondent on 20.07.2020, since the Public Information Officer failed to
furnish the information under the Right to Information Act. The First
Appellate Authority also did not furnish information, constraining the
petitioner to file the Second Appeal before the first respondent on
01.02.2021. The Second Appeal also came to be allowed on 16.04.2021
and the first respondent directed the third respondent to permit the
petitioner to inspect the documents and also take photo copies.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the third
respondent by communication dated 21.12.2023 directed the petitioner to
come for inspection on 28.12.2023 and also directed the fourth
respondent, who is the custodian of the documents to produce the same
on that day. The petitioner was unable to make it on the same because of
the health reasons, thereafter, the petitioner has also given an opportunity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
to sent his representative along with authorisation letter and identity
proof, so that the said representative inspect the documents and to get the
necessary certified copies. The date of hearing was fixed on 14.06.2024.
However, on the said date the fourth respondent did not produce the files
relating to File No.57/76 and the proceedings were adjourned to
13.08.2024, on which date also the fourth respondent did not produce the
records. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4
is that the said records are not available in the office of the fourth
respondent and therefore, the third respondent is unable to comply with
the orders passed by the first respondent. I had an occasion to decide the
same issue where the Public Information Officer / Authority have refused
to furnish the information citing non-availability of the documents, in
W.P(MD)No.10264 of 2024. In the present case also, the non-availability
of the documents cannot be an excuse for the third respondent or even
the fourth respondent to deny the information sought for by the writ
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
7. Considering the fact that the information, which is sought for is
relating to land assignment, it is a permanent record which cannot be
destroyed at any point of time and therefore, the authorities will have to
take expeditious steps to reconstruct the file and issue necessary
information as sought for by the petitioner and as directed by the first
respondent.
8. The learned counsel for respondents would also place reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Suupreme Court in Central Board of
Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and
others, reported in (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 497, where, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to access information does
not extend beyond the period during which the authorities are expected
to retain the records. However, this decision may not apply to the facts of
the present case since the information that is sought for by the petitioner
are all permanent records, which are expected to be kept intact and not
destroyed.
9. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
held that if the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the
respective public authority require preservation of the information for
only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to
such information only if he seeks the information when it is available
with the public authority. It was further held that the Right to Information
Act provides access to all information that is available and existing and
from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information'
and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act
would indicate that if a public authority has any information in the form
of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may
access such information, would be subject to the exemptions in section 8
of the Act and where the information sought is not a part of the record of
a public authority, and where such information is not required to be
maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public
authority, then the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public
authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then
furnish it to an applicant.
10. In the present matter, admittedly, the information sought for is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
not any record or information that is required to be kept or maintained
only for a limited period. As already discussed, the records are
permanent records and therefore, there can be no excuse given by the
authorities for not furnishing the same to the writ petitioner.
11. The writ petition is therefore allowed directing the first
respondent to pass final orders on the petitioner's application and also
specifically indicate that in the event of records not being available, the
Information Commissioner shall take expeditious steps to reconstruct the
records and furnish the information as sought for by the
applicant/petitioner. The first respondent shall pass final orders within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No 28.04.2025
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
To
1. The State Information Commissioner
Tamil Nadu, Chennai
2. The District Collector
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3. The PA to District Collector (General),
Information Officer,
Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
4. The Deputy Tahsildar
Virudhunagar Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
P.B. BALAJI, J.
am
Order made in
Dated:
28.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:53:20 pm )
