Madras High Court
A.Suriya vs The Tamil Nadu State Information ... on 24 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3725 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.3725 of 2025
A.Suriya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission,
No.378, First Floor,
Kamathenu Co-operative Shop Building,
Anna Salai, Tenampet,
Chennai-600 018.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Surveyar Colony,
Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai.
4.S.Haridas ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order made by the 1st respondent in SA 16374/Visaranai/ E/2023-
dated 13.08.2024 and quash the same as illegal and directing the 1 st respondent
to produce the consolidate certificate of the 4th respondent.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:09 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.3725 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasan
For R1 : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan
Standing Counsel
For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Prakash
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R4 : No Appearance
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order of the 1st respondent in SA
16374/Visaranai/ E/2023, dated 13.08.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents
2 and 3. The 4th respondent despite notice of service, has not chosen to appear
either through counsel or in person.
3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has
obtained compassionate appointment suppressing the material facts and
particulars. According to the petitioner, such compassionate appointment has
deprived genuine persons who are otherwise entitled for compassionate
appointment. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for information under the
Right to Information Act. Even according to the petitioner, his application dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:09 pm )
19.04.2023 was disposed by the 3rd respondent, partly complying with the
request of furnishing of information as originally sought for by the petitioner.
However, the petitioner, aggrieved by the refusal to provide a consolidated
certificate, preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent
having not responded within a period of 30 days, the petitioner has preferred the
second appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent however has passed
the impugned order refusing to furnish information since the 4th respondent has
objected to the furnishing of the information as sought for by the writ petitioner.
This order is challenged in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the order
in appeal No.ICPB/A-9/CIC/2006, dated 03.04.2006, in a case where
information was sought for regarding bio-data submitted by four candidates at
the time of appointment as Assistant Directors and also copies of their medical
reports declaring these 4 candidates as fit / unfit. The public Information Officer
declined to furnish information, citing Section 8 (f) of the Right to Information
Act stating that it would not serve any public purpose. On appeal, the appellate
authority also concurred with the decision of the Public Information Officer and
rejected the appeal. However, on second appeal, the Commission found that the
information sought for by the appellant was in public interest and set aside the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:09 pm )
concurrent orders of the authorities below and directed the information to be
furnished. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place decision of
the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P &
Others reported in AIR 2009 Allahabad 106, where the Hon'ble Devision
Bench of Allahabad High Court held that an information was sought for relating
to appointment / educational certificates of Assistant Teachers employed in
institution, furnishing such information would not amount to invasion of
privacy of any individual and held that the information was not exempted under
section 8(3) of Right to Information Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner
relying on these judgments, prayed for allowing the writ petition.
5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would
submit that there is no public interest involved in the subject matter of
information sought for by petitioner and further the 4th respondent has objected
to furnishing of the information and therefore, the 1st respondent was justified in
rejecting the petitioner's request for furnishing information citing Section 8 (i)
(j). He would therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submission made on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:09 pm )
7. Section 8 deals with exemption from disclosure of information. Section
8 (i)(j) states that information which relates to any personal information would
be exempted from disclosure. No doubt, the information sought for by the
petitioner pertains to the 4th respondent. However, it is the specific contention of
the petitioner that the on the basis of false information submitted to the
authorities, the 4th respondent has gained compassionate appointment to the
Government, thereby depriving other deserving candidates. Therefore, as held
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, such information
cannot be said to be exempted on the ground that it would invade privacy of any
individual. In fact, the Central Information Commission in the order dated
03.04.2006 also held that an application for appointment to a post under public
authority would become a public document and it cannot be withheld on the
ground that the said disclosure would amount to invasion of privacy. The facts
of these two cases would squarely fit in the facts of the present case where the
petitioner wants to expose the 4th respondent's compassionate appointment as
unsubstantiated and illegitimate grounds. In view of the above, the order of the
1st respondent citing Section 8 (i)(j) of the Right to Information Act and the
objections of the 4th respondent is not sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:09 pm )
8. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 13.08.2004 is set aside and the
3rd respondent is directed to furnish the information originally rejected by the 1st
respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
9. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
24.03.2025
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gbg
To:
1.The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission,
No.378, First Floor,
Kamathenu Co-operative Shop Building,
Anna Salai, Tenampet,
Chennai-600 018.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Surveyar Colony,
Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:09 pm )
P.B.BALAJI, J.
gbg
24.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:56:09 pm )
