The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
The Tamil Nadu Information
Commission came down heavily on the officials responsible for sharing
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the office of the
Chief Educational Officer, Chennai district.
Imposing penalty on the officials for the “harassment” and “unreasonable delay” in providing the information called for by E.L. Sagayaraj, Information Commissioner V.P.R. Elamparithi awarded a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner.
The petitioner had requested details of the interviews held on February 26, 2025, in the Don Bosco School, Perambur, under the Act. Since there was no response from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, Mr. Sagayaraj moved an appeal before the TNIC.
After hearing both sides, Mr. Elamparithi said it had been established that information was not provided to the petitioner within 30 days and no valid reasons were given by the PIO to explain the same. He invoked provisions under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the Act and appointed the Chief Education Officer, Chennai district, as the PIO in the case.
Awarding a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner for the mental agony he had to suffer owing to the delay in getting information, the Commission also sought an explanation from the PIO as to why a maximum penalty of ₹25,000 should not be levied and disciplinary action not be initiated against her.
Mr. Elamparithi directed the authorities to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within two weeks and report compliance to the order.
Imposing penalty on the officials for the “harassment” and “unreasonable delay” in providing the information called for by E.L. Sagayaraj, Information Commissioner V.P.R. Elamparithi awarded a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner.
The petitioner had requested details of the interviews held on February 26, 2025, in the Don Bosco School, Perambur, under the Act. Since there was no response from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, Mr. Sagayaraj moved an appeal before the TNIC.
After hearing both sides, Mr. Elamparithi said it had been established that information was not provided to the petitioner within 30 days and no valid reasons were given by the PIO to explain the same. He invoked provisions under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the Act and appointed the Chief Education Officer, Chennai district, as the PIO in the case.
Awarding a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner for the mental agony he had to suffer owing to the delay in getting information, the Commission also sought an explanation from the PIO as to why a maximum penalty of ₹25,000 should not be levied and disciplinary action not be initiated against her.
Mr. Elamparithi directed the authorities to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within two weeks and report compliance to the order.
.JPG)
.JPG)
