Taxscan: Madras: Thursday, May 22, 2025.
The court observed that the issue of “false information” was neither raised nor addressed in the earlier proceedings and cannot be introduced at the review stage
The Madras High Court has
dismissed a review petition appeared by a party-in-person, who sought
compensation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, citing delay and alleged
false information provided by the Public Information Officer of the Commercial
Tax Department.
The review application was filed to revisit the Division Bench’s earlier decision dated March 12, 2024, in W.A. No. 3024 of 2023, which had denied compensation, holding that the information was furnished within the stipulated time.
Mr. Vijayan, the applicant and RTI information seeker, had initially approached various authorities under the RTI Act after his requests were denied. Ultimately, the State Information Commissioner, acting as the Second Appellate Authority directed the concerned officer to furnish the requested information within 15 days. The information was subsequently provided within 12 days, as noted by the Court in its earlier judgment.
Despite receiving the information, Mr. Vijayan filed a writ petition seeking exemplary costs, claiming the information had been delayed and he had suffered prolonged agony. However, the Writ Court found no basis for awarding compensation since the prayer in the petition was limited to seeking the information, and the record did not support any malafide withholding or violation of RTI provisions that would justify monetary relief.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Division Bench through an intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed after the Bench noted that the information had been supplied on time post the Second Appellate Authority’s order.
In the present review petition, Mr. Vijayan, who appeared in person before the court, contended that the information provided was not only delayed but also false, thereby justifying compensation.
The Division Bench comprising Justices R. Suresh Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, held that the issue of “false information” was neither raised nor addressed in the earlier proceedings and cannot be introduced at the review stage.
Moreover, the Court observed that it was not competent, in the current proceedings, to evaluate whether the information supplied was factually incorrect or falsified. If the petitioner believes the information is false, he is at liberty to take appropriate legal action in accordance with law, the Court noted.
Finding no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment, the Court dismissed the review application without costs.
The court observed that the issue of “false information” was neither raised nor addressed in the earlier proceedings and cannot be introduced at the review stage
The review application was filed to revisit the Division Bench’s earlier decision dated March 12, 2024, in W.A. No. 3024 of 2023, which had denied compensation, holding that the information was furnished within the stipulated time.
Mr. Vijayan, the applicant and RTI information seeker, had initially approached various authorities under the RTI Act after his requests were denied. Ultimately, the State Information Commissioner, acting as the Second Appellate Authority directed the concerned officer to furnish the requested information within 15 days. The information was subsequently provided within 12 days, as noted by the Court in its earlier judgment.
Despite receiving the information, Mr. Vijayan filed a writ petition seeking exemplary costs, claiming the information had been delayed and he had suffered prolonged agony. However, the Writ Court found no basis for awarding compensation since the prayer in the petition was limited to seeking the information, and the record did not support any malafide withholding or violation of RTI provisions that would justify monetary relief.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Division Bench through an intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed after the Bench noted that the information had been supplied on time post the Second Appellate Authority’s order.
In the present review petition, Mr. Vijayan, who appeared in person before the court, contended that the information provided was not only delayed but also false, thereby justifying compensation.
The Division Bench comprising Justices R. Suresh Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, held that the issue of “false information” was neither raised nor addressed in the earlier proceedings and cannot be introduced at the review stage.
Moreover, the Court observed that it was not competent, in the current proceedings, to evaluate whether the information supplied was factually incorrect or falsified. If the petitioner believes the information is false, he is at liberty to take appropriate legal action in accordance with law, the Court noted.
Finding no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment, the Court dismissed the review application without costs.
.JPG)
.JPG)
